College and Research Libraries Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: A Review of the Literature Emily Werrell and Laura Sullivan The faculty status issue continues to hold considerable attention among academic librarians. Although it remains a contested subject, there have been changes in general opinion about faculty status over the past few decades. This article is intended to identify the most significant aspects of the topic and to provide a general survey of the literature since 1974. An accompany- ing annotated bibliography of 121 items will be available through the ERIC Clearinghouse in early 1987. or at least the past forty years, academic librarians have been deeply concerned with their professional status. Currently, the majority of academic librarians pos- sess faculty status, 1 which is defined as ''an official recognition by an institution of higher education that librarians are part of the instructional and research staff by con- ferment of ranks and titles identical to those of faculty, and commensurate bene- fits, rights, and responsibilities. " 2 This re- view is intended to illustrate representa- tive attitudes and practices concerning the faculty status issue from the mid-1970s to 1985. For the purposes of this article, fac- ulty status differs from "academic sta- tus,'' which implies neither identical titles and ranks nor all of the rights and respon- sibilities of faculty. In addition, this article does not treat the much broader issue of professional status or professionalism in the library science and information field. BACKGROUND While faculty status is certainly wide- spread, it is almost as controversial an is- sue now as it was a few decades ago, when concerned constituents of ACRL were be- ginning to fight for that organization's of- ficial endorsement of faculty status. hi. 1959, ACRL did endorse faculty status as a right, but it was not until1971 that its Aca- demic Status Committee drafted stan- dards and an official statement (jointly prepared by ACRL, the AAUP, and the Association of American Colleges) on the issue. The path to this official endorsement was a long one, as is documented by Ar- thur McAnally in "Status of the Univer- sity Librarian in the Academic Commu- nity. " 3 McAnally points out that, although librarians had always consid- ered themselves to be educators, it was during the postwar period that their re- sponsibilities changed drastically; rapid growth in collections and programs and new emphasis on the use of library re- sources in courses of stu9-y required better-trained and more specialized librar- ians. As they began to recognize their in- creasingly complex role, librarians became dissatisfied with their relatively low sta- tus. Emily Werrell is Reference/Instructional Services Librarian and Laura Sullivan is Reference Librarian at Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky 41076. 95 96 College & Research Libraries Many articles written during the 1930s and 1940s, if they did not support faculty status per se, did urge the adoption of some classification that would lend greater dignity and significance to library work. As the movement gained impetus, the faculty model was generally accepted as the most appropriate one for attaining this improved status. The rationale for this hinged primarily upon librarians' image of themselves as educators, with scholarly interests and knowledge on a par with those of the teaching faculty. By the late 1940s, surveys and review articles abounded in the library literature measur- ing and analyzing the degree to-which li- brarians were recognized as members of the academic community. This analysis continues to the present day. There was convincing reasoning behind this push for faculty status. Most aca- demic librarians could see no better alter- native for obtaining the recognition, re- spect, and privileges they felt they deserved. They wanted to be active mem- bers of their campuses-to have a voice in academic affairs, to have the opportunity to contribute in a scholarly fashion to the academic world, and to be recognized as partners of the teaching faculty in the edu- cation of students. According to the ACRL standards, without the librarian, the quality of teaching, research, and public services in our colleges and universities would deteriorate seriously and programs in many disciplines could no longer be performed. His contribution is intel- lectual in nature and is the product of consider- able formal education, including professional training at the graduate level. Therefore, col- lege and university librarians must be recog- nized as equal partners in ·the academic enter- prise, and they must be extended the rights and privileges which are not only commensurate with their contributions, but are necessary if they are to carry out their responsibilities. 4 In addition, the argument was made that faculty status would upgrade the profes- sion by attracting higher-quality person- nel. FACULTY STATUS TODAY In the 1980s, most academic librarians (almost 79 percent) have some form of fac- March 1987 ulty status. 5 This includes, in most cases, all of the responsibilities (i.e., research and publication, community service, ac- tivity in campus and professional affairs) and some of the privileges (i.e., opportu- nity for tenure, support for continued ed- ucation, involvement in university gov- ernance) of teaching faculty. There are still some glaring deficiencies in the privileges academic librarians enjoy. For example, most academic librarians work under twelve-month contracts, do not receive salaries equal to those of teaching faculty with the same rank, do not enjoy a flexible work day and week, and are not provided with the compensatory release time neces- sary for them to contribute in a scholarly manner to their field. Add to these tangi- ble disadvantages the collegial and social setbacks resulting from a negative image and an ambiguous role, and it is clear that academic librarians have far to go. Still, many of us feel, as McAnally did in 1971, that ''librarians must either join the faculty or be permanently relegated to pe- ripheral and inferior roles. " 6 While it is true that academic librarians desire the working conditions and influence neces- sary to provide the best · possible service and to make the highest possible contribu- tions, there have been recent rumblings from within the ranks whether faculty sta- tus is the most appropriate vehicle for at- taining these conditions. In 1981, Richard Meyer reported that faculty status was held in disfavor by five times as many academic librarians as five years earlier. Many felt "relegated to second-class status. They felt pressure be- cause of the necessity to compete with faculty-publish or perish-without the time to do it." 7 For many years, academic librarians with faculty status have been trying to juggle all of their administrative, supervisory, public service, technical sup- port, and even clerical responsibilities as librarians with the increasingly stringent scholarly, collegial, and community re- sponsibilities they have as faculty members-all the while continuing to work forty hours a week, eleven months a year, and to earn salaries consistently at the low end of the pay scale for similarly ranked faculty at their institutions. The strain is beginning to show. Other arguments against faculty status maintain that the problem lies not in working conditions, but in the fact that our profession lacks a sound identity of its own. Recent articles argue that we as li- brarians should be respected on the strength of our unique contributions to the academic world, and not according to criteria set for a profession that differs from our own. Lance Query said it this way: ''Until academic librarians are recog- nized for what they really do rather than for a dimly defined and selectively relevant 'teaching' function, their role in the mis- sion of the college or university will con- tinue to be misunderstood and, inevita- bly, undervalued.'' 8 There is a growing sentiment that we may have been mis- taken when we adopted faculty status so wholeheartedly in order to elevate our own positions. Several authors decry the decision of ACRL-and academic librarians in general-to ride the coattails of teaching faculty. In a 1983 article, John DePew states that "the ranks and titles of the teaching faculty should not be used be- cause they are the labels of another profes- sion ... when librarians use them for their own, they undermine the integrity of their own profession, and in a real sense deny it, by trying to use what Robert Pier- son calls the 'protective coloration' of an- other profession to label it what it isn't. " 9 Meyer states that ''the implementation of faculty status is tantamount to leaving the profession for one of a supposedly higher status. " 10 In a 1984 survey, Thomas En- glish found that most academic adminis- trators believe that granting faculty status to librarians does nothing to benefit the university and that faculty appointments are unsuitable for librarians. 11 As the belief that the faculty status model is inappropriate has gained popu- larity, some librarians have made an effort to change their status from a faculty model to something unique, reflecting their spe- cial contributions. As DePew wrote, ''some libraries that did make an effort to implement full faculty status in accord- ance with the ACRL standards have be- gun to have second thoughts." 12 In 1983, Faculty Status 97 Anthony Tassin reported that "large numbers of academic librarians are begin- ning to doubt its benefits or even assert their conviction that faculty status is not to their advantage."13 English's 1983 survey of ARL libraries found that ''the once- popular thrust to shift academic librarians from nonfaculty to faculty status-a move- ment of considerable impetus in the 1960s and early 1970s-had apparently run its course.'' 14 Indeed, English found that the only shifts of this kind in recent years were in the other direction. W. Bede Mitchell and L. Stanislava Swieszkowski report that of the thirty-seven respondents to their questionnaire on status and publica- tions, sixteen institutions in the last ten years have changed their librarians' status to nontenure track and twelve have adopted a tenure-track system not requir- ing publication. 15 Despite the fact that some creative alternatives have been im- plemented, a resolution of the problem on a national scale remains elusive. SPECIFIC ISSUES In addition to articles about faculty sta- tus trends, the literature is saturated with research exploring, defining, and ques- tioning the spokes of the faculty status wheel: publication/ scholarship, govern- ance and collegiality, librarians as teach- ers, collective bargaining, salary, contract year, peer review, and other related is- sues. The following selected viewpoints represent the more vocal issues in the lit- erature. Publication/Scholarship This salient topic poses a dilemma for many librarians-are we librarians only, scholars or authors, or some fuzzy combi- nation of all three? As the emphasis on scholarship continues to grow, a further complication exists within this added re- quirement. Frederick Isaac, concerned that pressure exists ''on all librarians to contribute to the profession through the development, achievement, and publica- tion of significant research,'' discusses several resultant dilemmas facing the li- brarian. For example, if one accepts the premise that publication by librarians is valuable-and not all do-the next ques- 98 College & Research Libraries tion is, Should librarians publish only in li- brarianship, or in an outside discipline as well?16 While some argue that librarians must produce more (and increasingly im- proved) research concerning their field, John Kaiser presents another angle. He in- sists that for the librarian and library sci- ence student to attain "bona fide aca- demic status," he or she must gain competence in a subject field and publish in that subject field. This will yield closer faculty contact and a chance for the librar- ian to be accepted as a member of the aca- demic community. 17 A problem also exists for those librarians who have little interest in publishing or who feel that service is more important than scholarship. 18 Willis Bridegam as- serts that ''a requirement or an expecta- tion to perform research and to publish it could result in a serious reduction in the level of service provided to the library's users. " 19 John Campbell, sarcastically ad- dressing library school faculty, says ''give up your quest to teach people to catalog, to do reference, to serve a public. Teach them instead to write, research, get things published.' ' 20 On the other hand, from a survey by Dwight Burlingame and Joan Repp, several academic librarians who published felt that research enhances the quality of library service rather than de- tracting from it. 21 According to some authors, factors such as lack of release time and contract year (twelve months for most librarians) Rre- vent librarians from devoting the amount of time it takes to conduct serious re- search. In a survey by Jack Pontius and other U.S. academic members of ARL li- braries, 94 percent of those libraries with faculty status required research for pro- motion and tenure, however only 9 per- cent provided regular release time for such research. 22 In a survey by Ronald Rayman and Frank Goudy of the ninety- four ARL libraries, thirty-five libraries provided release time while thirty-three did not. 23 With increasing pressure on librarians to publish, the lack of release time places the burden on librarians to initiate re- search, according to Daniel Traister. 24 However, Burlingame and Repp surveyed March 1987 academic librarians (authors and non- authors) concerning what motivated them to publish and found that institutional en- couragement (i.e. release time), "exclud- ing the promise of tenure or promotion, is not a factor in successful publication ef- forts. " 25 Whether or not release time is a factor, Mitchell and Swieszkowski found that re- search and publication affect tenure. Their survey of 138 Center for Research Li- braries members showed that lack of suf- ficient research and publication are the most frequent causes of librarians being denied tenure. 26 Several articles in the literature have dealt with means to aid librarians faced with the research requirement. Susan Miller and others explained the Academic Library Research Committee at the Ohio State University Libraries, which was charged ''to promote research activities and projects by the Libraries faculty, to identify areas and/or interests to be inves- tigated, to coordinate research activities within the faculty, to solicit funds and in- dividuals to do research, and to publicize research activities.' ' 27 This committee also designed a reassigned time policy for the OSU libraries. Darrell Jenkins, Kathy Cook, and Mary Anne Fox detailed the de- sign of the Research Interest Group at Southern Illinois University at Carbon- dale. This provides those interested a chance to hear outside speakers and fac- ulty members discuss research experi- ences and offer advice. 28 Governance and Collegiality Governance and collegiality concerns are also evident in the literature. Page Ackerman reviewed the governance is- sue, specifically addressing ACRL Stan- dards for Faculty Status for College and Uni- versity Librarians (1975) and the Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Li- brarians (1975). Noting deficiencies in these documents, Ackerman says the Statement "fails to specify the means by which librarians shall achieve voice in in- stitutional governance.'' The Standards are also ambiguous: ''They specify member- ship in the senate as the means for achiev- · ing voice and place no role and authority of the library faculty in internal govern- ( ance. '' The lack of a precise role for librari- ans in institutional governance is due in part to confusion among academic col- leagues about the status of librarians, as well as to ambiguity in the profession's own standards. 29 In the area of library governance, there are distinct differences between the tradi- tional hierarchical structure of libraries and the traditional collegial structure of academic departments. Adeline Tallau and Benjamin Beede say "the rarity of a collegial form of library governance is a re- flection of the restricted dimensions of the 'faculty status' accorded to librarians in most colleges and universities. " 30 An- other explanation for these differences is the difficulty in applying a collegial struc- ture to a bureaucratic setting. Robert Se- well says "it is still widely felt in the pro- fession that in administrative structure, libraries resemble hospitals more than universities ... [in that] they are com- posed of large work forces ranging broadly in status, 1131 whereas in colleges and universities, the faculty members are equals. Tallau and Beede argue that librarians should mimic the collegiality of teaching departments in order to attain true faculty status. 32 At Dickinson College, the library faculty succeeded in changing from a hier- archical form of governance to a collegial one. Some changes included a nine- month contract rather th'an an eleven- month one, and one month in the summer devoted to research and professional de- velopment. The library became the "De- partment of Library Resources, with a chairperson elected by department mem- bers and approved by the dean, as all other department chairpersons were . . . this meant rotation of the chairpersonship as well as department heads! 1133 Other less revolutionary means of im- proving governance and collegiality have been reported. The library at Georgia State University chose to make their gov- ernance more specific and participative. Michael McDavid details the process of establishing bylaws at Georgia State and the resulting faculty committees and an administrative council. 34 Richard Meyer admits that an alignment with the faculty model has supposedly Faculty Status 99 been helpful in raising librarians' status and improving self-image. Nevertheless, he labels collegiality and the faculty model inappropriate d~e to an evaluation proce- dure ill-fitted to librarians, and the expec- tation for librarians to do research that is wrong "if pursuit of scholarly studies- just for the sake of evaluation criteria-or of teaching diverts the academic librarian from providing service.''35 Instead, Meyer desires a professional librarian model and calls for librarians to be committed to ser- vice and ''to pursue self-esteem and status on the basis of good service rather than on artificial attachments. 1136 Louise Sherby opts for librarians to pursue extraprofes- sional activities, such as committee work and institutional service, enabling the teaching faculty to acknowledge librarians as equals. 37 Librarians as Teachers Librarian identification with faculty, es- pecially in the role of teacher, is also signif- icant in the faculty status question. Paul- ine Wilson's well-known article on librarians as teachers describes this con- cept as an organization fiction, '' disguis- ing the truth, and it has contributed to the difficulty librarians have had in explaining their work and developing an under- standable and believable professional identity. 1138 Wilson claims that library in- struction may be a function of academic li- brarians, but this in itself is not sufficient to warrant librarians' right to faculty sta- tus. David Peele is of the opinion that teach- ing is only a very small part of what librari- ans do, and that it cannot be compared to the teaching of subject matter in the class- room. While granting that librarians do have some knowledge of subject areas, he feels ''that in the majority of cases knowl- edge of content does not necessarily mean we are teaching it, and I also believe that there is a difference between what we do at our desks and what they do at their lec- terns. There certainly is such a difference from the point of view of the student. 1139 He also wonders how technical services li- brarians fit into the teaching role. John Budd has an opposite viewpoint- like teachers, librarians provide students with information ''in a systematic and or- 100 College & Research Libraries derly fashion, thus increasing the stu- dent's store of knowledge."40 The only difference is that a student's informational need is met at the reference desk and not in the classroom. The librarian's role as teacher, as well as researcher and pub- lisher, is important in attaining faculty sta- tus and does not strip librarians of their identity as librarians .41 Although Mary Biggs identifies faculty status as one area of tension between fac- ulty and librarians, 42 the two groups are apparently compatible according to Mary Huston and Frank Motley. Evergreen State College has devised a librarian- faculty rotation whereby librarians may work as teachers for a term with all the benefits (faculty pay scale, nine-month contract); likewise, teachers take on the · duties of public service librarians, such as handling collection development, biblio- graphic instruction, and reference. 43 Becoming accepted as teachers may con- tinue to be an uphill struggle for librari- ans, as surveys of academic administra- tors and teaching faculty have shown that academic librarians are not generally per- ceived to be teachers. 44 Opinions differ re- garding whether this is due to librarians' failing to make known what teaching functions they perform, to the fact that li- brarians in general are simply not as well educated as faculty, or to sheer ignorance and ill will on the part of teaching faculty. 45 Perhaps the most fundamental cause is proposed by Wilson: "There is no basis for recognition. It is not that teachers and professors will not recognize librarians as teachers. Rather, it is that they cannot. There is nothing visible with which a con- nection can be made to permit or produce recognition.' ' 46 Collective Bargaining Another component of faculty status is what Margaret Beckman said ''will be the normal pattern for the majority of aca- demic library staffs within the next decade'' -collective bargaining. 47 Pres- ently, there is little in the literature to sub- stantiate this prediction; apparently, the interest in collective bargaining was high- est in the mid~ to late seventies as indi- cated by the flurry of publications on the March 1987 subject surfacing at the time. 48 However, a recent study indicates an increase in union activity on campuses in the last few years. One such campus is Curry College, whose bargaining agent is the AAUP. The librari- ans hold faculty ranks, are eligible for sab- baticals and research support, have long vacations and twenty-eight-hour work weeks in the summer, and enjoy generous benefits including maternity, paternity, and adoption leave. The study also re- ports that recent union negotiations have dealt with working conditions and per- sonnel evaluation; grievance issues have included leave policy, sexual harassment, and flexible scheduling. 49 John Weatherford believes collective bargaining is a positive factor in the quest for full-fledged faculty status. He exam- ines the ACRL Statement on Right's and Priv- ileges, which "recommends nine rights or privileges that academic librarians ought to share equally with all faculty members, and provides for sanctions against col- leges and universities that do not grant them. " 50 These rights are self- determination on the job, library gover- nance, college and university governance, compensation, tenure, promotion, leaves, research funds and academic freedom. Weatherford states that since the incep- tion of faculty collective bargaining in four-year colleges and universities, parity for academic librarians has not yet been achieved in all nine areas of the ACRL Statement, although some progress has beenmade. ' Belle Zeller also recommends that librar- ians ''make themselves an integral part of their faculty unions," although at the same time recognizing the obstacles to fac- ulty unionization, such as faculty reluc- tance and the lack of authorization by state legislatures for public employees to bar- gain collectively. 51 An additional obstacle is the minority status of librarians on a unionized campus. The library faculty needs to be assertive, cohesive, and well- organized so that their interests will not be ''compromised at the bargairling tab~e by the larger group~·" 52• bavid l