College and Research Libraries Faculty Status for Librarians: Querying the Troops Russ Davidson, Connie Capers Thorson, and Diane Stine This survey assesses the views of academic librarians within the Rocky Mountain region re- garding the benefits and responsibilities of faculty status. The results show that the issue is controversial for several reasons and that not only are the librarians themselves divided over the question, but also that their views are frequently at variance with those of their directors. n the May 1981 issue of College & Research Libraries (42:203-13), we reported on a survey of di- rectors of academic libraries in the Rocky Mountain region regarding fac- ulty status for academic librarians. While that survey indicated that most directors think faculty status is appropriate for li- brarians in academic institutions, it also demonstrated their uncertainty regarding the actual benefits accruing to librarians. A second survey was undertaken to as- sess the views of the individual librarian. The results and analysis of this survey are discussed below. The primary purpose of the survey was to gauge the views of aca- demic librarians on the subject of faculty status. The survey also sought to compare the responses between the library direc- tors and their respective faculties regard- ing faculty status. We were reinforced in our thinking that the views of the individual librarian are important by a letter to the editor appear- ing in the March 1981 issue of College & Re- search Libraries (42:149) from Brian Alley, (then at Miami University of Ohio, now the director of the Sangamon State Uni- versity Library). In commenting on Greg Byerly's survey of academic library direc- tors in Ohio concerning faculty status for librarians (C&RL, 41:422-29), Mr. Alley noted that all that was missing was the point of view of the librarians. "Byerly," he continued, ''hits the nail on the head · when he admits that asking directors to determine staff satisfaction with faculty status might not produce the desired in- formation. Why then not query the troops?" 1 Mr. Alley's observation pro- vides the context for our survey. We think that the results of the survey will be of in- terest to library faculty members both within and beyond the Rocky Mountain region. METHODOLOGY The previous survey of library direCtors comprised a total of forty institutions in the Rocky Mountain region in which all li- brarians had faculty status. We wrote to the directors of these forty libraries, re- questing (1) permission to survey the li- brary faculty, (2) the name of a contact per- son, and (3) the total number of librarians. Four directors did not respond, even to a second request. Of the thirty-six directors who did, one refused us permission for the survey. We then sent the question- naires to the contact person who was Russ Davidson and Connie Capers Thorson are both acquisitions librarians, University of New Mexico, Albu- querque, and Diane Stine is head technical services librarian, Winnetka Public Library, Winnetka, Illinois. 414 asked to distribute the form with a stamped, addressed envelope to each li- brarian within the respective library. A to- tal of 528 questionnaires were mailed. We received 368 responses, giving us a re- sponse rate of 69.8 percent. We received no responses from three of the thirty-five libraries ultimately contacted. The questionnaire (see appendix A) was designed to measure the benefits and re- sponsibilities attached to having faculty status, to inquire whether tenure and pro- motion requirements are the same for li- brarians as those for teaching faculty at the same institution, and, finally, to assess the nature and degree of any controversy that might surround this issue. As our criteria, we again used the standards for faculty status adopted by the Association of Col- lege and Research Libraries in 1971. 2 Certain demographic data used in the first survey are not used here. However, other such data-type and form of control of the institution-are employed. These data, which we initially thought would be important, proved to be inconsequential. The demographic data used were taken from the 32d edition of the American Li- brary Directory. Analysis of the survey results included such variables as bene- fits, responsibilities, rank, tenure status of respondent, and type of position. FINDINGS As stated above, 69.8 percent of the 528 questionnaires sent out were returned by librarians from thirty-two of the thirty-five institutions. The seven states included in the survey were New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. When asked whether controversy sur- rounds the question of faculty status for li- brarians in their institution, 61.4 percent (226) indicated that it does, 36.4 percent (134) that it does not, and 2.2 percent (8) chose not to answer the question. The very fact that in twenty-seven of the thirty-two libraries librarians are divided in their response supports the view that controversy does indeed exist (see table 1). ·. It is in Arizona that the degree of contro- Faculty Status for Librarians 415 versy is the highest. Nearly 98 percent of surveyed librarians in Arizona indicated that there is controversy. This.high per- centage may arise from a recent decision by the current president of Arizona State University to reassess the provision of fac- ulty status for librarians. As one respon- dent from Arizona State University points out, ''We have been trying to get our sta- tus stabilized to our satisfaction for many years. It comes unstuck each time there is a change in the university's top adminis- trators. Our new president has just de- cided that we are 'academic profession- als,' a decision that bodes ill for our position." In the remaining six states, the responses were more evenly divided (see table 2). Controversy over faculty status, as the librarians' comments make clear, arises from two sources: from outside the library and from within the ranks of the librarians themselves. Thus, while some respon- dents note that ''every few years we li- brarians have to reaffirm, rejustify our fac- ulty positions to the administration," others point out that the librarians them- selves cannot agree about the benefits and responsibilities of faculty status. In this latter vein, another respondent com- ments, "The librarians at this university generally do not want to do very much that is 'professional' or 'scholarly,' yet want faculty status." A third adds that he · does not like faculty status because ''it is so controversial-others [librarians] don't agree it is desirable or beneficial and aren't willing to try to meet the requirements." Two further comments will serve to illus- trate related aspects of the controversy as it is perceived by some librarians: ''Our re- quirements for tenure change with the whims of university administration de- spite what the library handbook lists as re- quirements for tenure." "We have a criti- cal problem with the University administration in that they will not accept the MLS plus masters as terminal degrees-thus our staff is frozen at Assis- tant Professor rank. Yet in such areas as Landscape Architecture and Communica- tion and others the same restriction doesn't apply.'' Table 3 shows that librarians without 416 College & Research Libraries November 1983 TABLE 1 CONTROVERSY BY INSTITUTION Yes, There Is No, There Is No iontrov~sy Controversy No Res ponse Institution # . % # % 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 2 1 9 10 91 0 0 3 2 33 4 67 0 0 4 2 67 0 0 1 33 5 1 20 4 80 0 0 6 0 0 1 33 2 67 7 0 0 1 100 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 50 2 50 0 0 11 3 75 1 25 0 0 12 3 75 1 25 0 0 13 12 80 3 20 0 0 14 7 87 1 13 0 0 15 4 100 0 0 0 0 16 5 71 2 29 0 0 17 1 100 0 0 0 0 18 2 50 2 50 0 0 19 5 83 1 17 0 0 20 4 50 4 50 0 0 21 0 0 5 100 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 33 2 67 0 0 24 43 100 0 0 0 0 25 31 96 1 2 1 2 26 9 100 0 0 0 0 27 18 90 2 10 0 0 28 13 40 18 57 2 3 29 3 21 9 72 1 7 30 4 36 7 64 0 0 31 10 30 23 67 1 3 32 5 42 7 58 0 0 33 9 64 5 36 0 0 34 8 42 11 58 0 0 35 18 75 6 25 0 0 TABLE2 CONTROVERSY BY STATE New Mexico Arizo na Colorado Controvers~ # % # % II Yes 31 62 81 97 60 No 18 36 2 2 66 No Response 1 2 1 1 3 Total 50 100 84 100 129 tenure are more likely to perceive contro- versy over faculty status than those with tenure. This marked dichotomy in re- sponse could be ascribed to a number of factors. Those without tenure are, ipso facto, confronted with problems that ten- ured faculty are not . Secondly, not only are untenured librarians forced to meet re- quirements no longer made of tenured faculty, but the requirements themselves % 46 51 3 100 Utah fyo minfo Idaho Montana II % # % II % 13 72 18 80 11 31 12 42 5 28 3 12 25 69 15 54 0 0 2 8 0 0 1 4 18 100 23 100 36 100 28 100 are now being more stringently applied at many institutions. Added to this is the perplexity that many beginning librarians may feel when encountering the polariza- tion among other junior-level colleagues over this question. Conversely, many of_ the now-tenured library faculty achieved tenure under a "grandfather clause" and thus never faced a tenure-review process. In contrast to the ACRL standards that TABLE 3* CONTROVERSY BY TENURED AND UNTENURED FACULTY Tenured Controversy rcult'tro Untenured lacul\ 85 24.9 43 12.6 Yes No Total 88 25.8 125 36.7 213 62.5 + 128 . 37.5= 341; 100% *Table 3 reflects the correlation for those 341 respondents who answered both question 1 (controversy) and question 20 (tenure status). The other 27 respondents are not represented. call for academic-year contracts, 3 91.5 per- cent of the surveyed librarians reported that they hold twelve-month contracts (see table 4). This discrepancy points up another aspect of the controversy. Indeed, many respondents deem it patently unfair that librarians must meet the same schol- arly or publishing requirements as teach- ing faculty when obliged to hold twelve- month contracts. A parallel situation is illustrated in table 5 that shows the hours per week that librarians must work. The overwhelming majority (94.57 percent) of librarians in the Rocky Mountain region work forty hours per week. One succinct comment expresses what many librarians do not like about faculty status: the condi- tion of ''trying to meet standards set by and for teaching faculty on a 12-month contract and on a rigid 40-hour per week schedule." In this context, it is interesting to note TABLE4 LENGTH OF LIBRARIANS' CONTRACT YEAR Contract Year II 12 months 337 10 months 7 9 months 23 1 No response Total 368 TABLE 5 LENGTH OF LffiRARIANS' WORKWEEK Work week II 40 hours 348 37 hours 1 35 hours 2 30 hours 1 Other 16 Total 368 % 91.5 2.0 6.2 .3 100.0 % 94.57 .27 .54 .27 4.35 100.00 Faculty Status for Librarians 417 that while our survey did not address the matter of librarians' salaries, the issue was nevertheless highlighted through numer- ous respondents' comments. Concern over salaries appears to be tied directly to the constraints imposed by the length of contract year and rigidly controlled work schedule as well as to the difficulty of meeting certain requirements (for exam- ple, publishing) under such conditions. It is worth speculating whether, if salaries were perceived to be more equitable be- tween librarians and teaching faculty, these other perceived discrepancies would be diminished in librarians' eyes. When asked whether their normal work loads include time for other activities such as committee work or attendance at con- ferences, 90 percent (328) indicated yes; 9 percent (36) no; and 1 percent (4) provided no response (see table 6). This over- whelmingly positive response may be de- ceptive, however, because many people commented that time spent on committee work may have to be made up later in or- der to complete routine work. TABLE 6 OTHER ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN WORK SCHEDULE Activities Allowed? Yes No No Response Total 328 36 4 368 % 90 9 1 100 When asked whether they are encour- aged to serve on library and/or institu- tional committees (see table 7), 97 percent (355) responded affirmatively; 2 percent (10) negatively; and 1 percent (3) provided no response. Librarians' responses to the question about whether or not they are en- couraged to serve on professional commit- tees at the state, local, and regional level displayed a similar pattern (see table 8). The strongly affirmative response noted in tables 7 and 8 imply that committee ser- vice is considered important by adminis- trators for tenure and promotion. The question of whether or not librari- ans are subject to the same tenure provi- sions as teaching faculty provides a rea- 418 College & Research Libraries TABLE 7 ENCOURAGED TO WORK ON LIBRARY AND/OR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEES Library/Institutional Committees? # Yes 355 No 10 No Response 3 Total 368 TABLE 8 ENCOURAGED TO SERVE ON PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES Professional Committees? # Yes 343 No 21 No Response 4 Total 368 % 97 2 1 100 % 94 5 1 100 sonably uniform response across the region as a whole. Seventy percent (251) indicate that they are subject to identical provisions (see table 9). However, in ex- amining the question of identical tenure provisions by state we observe a major dif- ference in the region (table 10). For exam- ple, in New Mexico 87 percent (43) of the librarians replied that tenure require- ments are identical, while in Arizona, at the opposite end of the continuum, only 7 percent (7) of the librarians stated that the requirements are the same. In our pre- vious survey, by comparison, the Arizona directors (4) were evenly divided on the TABLE9 TENURE PROVISIONS IDENTICAL TO TEACHING FACULTY'S Identical Provisions # Yes 251 No 99 No Response 18 Total 368 % 70 25 5 100 November 1983 same question while in New Mexico only 63 percent (5) of the directors agreed that tenure provisions are the same. To those who responded that they were not governed by identical tenure provi- sions, we asked whether an equivalent provision was in effect. Sixty-seven per- cent (66) said no, and 33 percent (33) said yes. Therefore, sixty-six librarians may ei- ther not know what provisions govern them or work in institutions where there are no provisions for tenure. How can these librarians be said to have faculty sta- tus? The question of publishing provides fur- ther evidence of disparity between the viewpoints of librarians and those of their directors. When librarians were asked whether or not they must publish to be granted tenure and promotion, 42 percent (156) responded affirmatively, 50 percent (184) responded negatively, and 8 percent (28) did not respond. These results con- trast sharply w_ith those from the earlier survey of library directors in which only 18 percent (7) indicated that librarians must publish in order to be promoted or granted tenure. Such diversity in re- sponse is difficult to explain, but it may stem from the directors' not being in close contact with their faculties or from the li- brarians' ignorance of what is required of them, or both. A number of respondents commented that publishing is necessary for promotion but not for tenure. This dis- tinction would seem to contradict the as- sertion that tenure provisions are the same for the teaching and library faculties. The publishing issue elicited pointed com- ments from numerous librarians. It is thought-by many who chose to write comments-that the pressure to publish is unfair for faculty who work at least a forty- hour week for eleven months of the year. 4 A final instance of divergence between TABLE 10 IDENTICAL TENURE PROVISIONS BY STATE New Identical Mexico Arizona Colorado Utah fyominfo Idaho Montana Provisions # % # % # % # % # % # % Yes 43 87 7 7 108 80 14 88 19 83 32 89 28 100 No 6 11 68 84 15 15 2 6 4 17 4 11 0 0 No Response 1 2 9 9 6 5 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 50 100 84 100 129 100 18 100 23 100 36 100 28 100 Faculty Status for Librari~ns 419 TABLE 11 PERCEPTION OF BENEFITS BY LIBRARIANS AND DIRECTORS Libraria n s Ben efit Yes Peer review for tenure 93% Peer review for ~romotion 89 Eligibility for sa baticals 85 Eligibility for research leaves 88.5 Eligibility for research funds 80 Access to Jfievance procedures 92 Organize faculty 77 Eligible for senate 95 librarians' perceptions and those of their directors emerges over the question of benefits of faculty status. Table 11 incor- porates information from our previous study with answers from the present study. In every category but one, the per- centage of library directors indicating that librarians enjoy a particular benefit ex- ceeds the librarians' own response. In- deed, in six categories, 100 percent of the library directors responded that librarians enjoyed the corresponding benefit. Per- haps the directors were speaking theoreti- cally whereas the librarians were answer- ing from actual experience. CONCLUSION It is clear that in the Rocky Mountain re- gion there is considerable controversy over faculty status for academic librarians .. Such controversy appears, in its various dimensions, to stem principally from the different time commitments that exist for librarians as opposed to those of the teach- ing faculty . While the latter enjoy the ben- efit of nine-month contracts and more · flexible work schedules in attempting to fulfill their faculty obligations, librarians, with few exceptions, do not. This discrep- ancy, felt all the more keenly in light of pronounced salary differences, has cre- ated a dubious attitude among academic librarians regarding faculty status and has led many to question the suitability and practical value of this system. In the words Direc tors Librarian s Direc tors Yes No No 86% 7% 14% 100 11 0 100 15 0 100 11.5 0 100 20 0 100 8 0 86 23 14 100 5 0 of one respondent: "Faculty status does not always conform to the library environ- ment and also alludes to an improper de- scription of my work. Since I do not teach and have a twelve-month contract, people are often confused by the title. I think our titles should be changed to describe our work situation. However, I have certain reservations about a change because new titles may put us in a precarious situation whereby the opportunities which the li- brary faculty are deserving of-tenure, sabbaticals, research leaves, etc.-may eventually be overlooked.'' Moreover, the effects of the controversy appear to have spilled over into the ranks of the librarians and most sharply be- tween the tenured and nontenured librari- ans. The survey also illustrates that clear differences of opinion and viewpoint exist between the librarians and their directors on different aspects of the controversy. Almost invariably the directors hold a more positive view of the benefits of fac- ulty status for librarians than do the librar- ians themselves. In the end, to have ''queried the troops'' is to have seen that-at least in the Rocky Mountain region-the issue is far from set- tled . On the contrary, it continues to be controversial. Nor is it surprising that this should be so; for if the library faculty are divided, is it any wonder that university administrators and others display a simi- lar ambivalence? REFERENCES 1. For another study examining librarians' opinions of faculty status see Prabha Sharma, "A Survey of Academic Librarians and Their Opinions Related to Nine-Month Contracts and Academic Status 420 College & Research Libraries November 1983 Configurations in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, '' College & Research Libraries 42:561-70 (Nov. 1981). 2. "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians," College & Research Libraries News 8:210-12 (Sept. 1972). 3. Ibid., p.211 . On the subject of the contract year, the ACRL standards specify, "Librarians should normally be appointed for the academic year. If a librarian is expected to work through the summer session, his salary scale should be adjusted similarly to the summer session scale of other faculty at his college or university.'' 4. For additional information on librarians and publishing, see Ronald Rayman and Frank Wm. Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements in University Libraries," College & Research Li- braries 41:43-48 (Jan. 1980); and Priscilla Geahigan and others, "Acceptability of Non-Library/ Information Science Publications in the Promotion and Tenure of Academic Librarians,'' College & Research Libraries 42:571-75 (Nov. 1981). APPENDIX A We are interested in knowing the benefits for and expectations of academic librarians with faculty status . Please respond to the following questions and feel free to make comments on any of them. Thank you. 1. Is there controversy in your library or institution about faculty status for librarians? yes no 2. Do you hold a contract of nine months? ten months? twelve months? 3. If you hold a twelve-month contract, are nine- or ten-month contracts possible for you? yes no 4. Is your scheduled work week 30 hours? 35 hours? 37 hours? 40 hours? other? 5. Does your normal work load include time for other professional activities such as committee work? yes no 6. Are you, as a librarian, encouraged to serve on library and/or school committees? yes no 7. Are you, as a librarian, encouraged to serve on professional committees at the state, regional, and/or national level? yes no 8. Are you covered by tenure provisions identical to those of the teaching faculty? yes no 9. If the answer to #8 is "no," is there an equivalent provision made? yes no 10. Are recommendations for tenure, or its equivalent, based on a peer review system? yes no 11. Are you, as a librarian, eligible for promotion in rank? yes no 12. Are recommendations for promotion based on a peer review system? yes no 13. Are you, as a librarian, eligible for sabbatical leaves on the same basis as teaching faculty? yes no 14. Are you, as a librarian, eligible for research leaves with or without pay? yes no 15. Do you, as a librarian, have access to the same research funds that are accessible to teaching faculty? yes no 16. Do-you have access to grievance, appeal, and review procedures available to teaching faculty? yes no 17. Must you publish to be granted promotion and tenure or their equivalent? yes no 18. Has a library faculty been formally organized and/or constituted? yes no 19. Are you, as a librarian, eligible for membership in the academic senate or equivalent faculty body? yes no 20. Are you tenured? Untenured? 21. During what year did you begin working as a librarian in your institution? 22 . What is your rank? Instructor? Assistant Professor? Associate Professor? Professor? Other? 23 . Which position describes yours? Assistant Director? Department Head? Functional Special- ist? Librarian? Assistant Department Head? 24. Are you ip. Readers' Services? Technical Services? Collection Development? Administra- tion? 25. Name of your institution? ___________________________ _ 26 . What do you like about faculty status? _____________________ _ 27. What don't you like about faculty status? ____________________ _ COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________ __