College and Research Libraries Status of the Profession: A 1989 National Survey of Tenure and Promotion Policies for Academic Librarians Betsy Park and Robert Riggs A questionnaire surveying institutional tenure and promotion criteria sent to 469 academic libraries yielded 304 usable responses. Findings show that job performance continues to be the most widely recognized factor for evaluating academic librarians' performances, examined in virtually every institution. Research, publication, and service play significant roles, particularly at insti- tutions where librarians hold faculty status. Graduate degrees in addition to the M.L.S. are frequently necessary for promotion in academic rank. Approxi- mately half of the responding institutions judge academic librarians by the same tenure and promotion criteria as other faculty. he tenure and promotion pro- cesses are unique aspects of the professorate in American higher education. Tenure is a historical practice that protects the academic freedom of a faculty member in an institution of higher education and prevents the faculty member's dismissal without adequate cause and due process. When an institution grants individuals tenure, it presumes their profes- sional excellence as scholars and teachers, as well as the promise of their long-term contri- bution to the institution's mission and pro- grams. Tenure is "the most reliable means of assuring faculty quality and educational ex- cellence, as well as the best guarantee of academic freedom." 1 Similarly, the process of appointment and promotion through the academic ranks is basic to the professional lives of American academics. Promotion in rank is an as- pect of recognition of past achievement, as well as recognition of promise, and a signal of institutional confidence that the faculty member is capable of accepting and discharging greater responsibilities. Academic librarians have been concerned with faculty. status and its concomitant right to tenure and promotion for more than 100 years. Suggestions that librarians should have academic rank date from 1911.2 While tenure has been an academic issue since Harvard's President Charles Eliot's 1873 statement that job security would provide dignity to the teaching profession, tenure was not officially endorsed for librarians unti11946. 3 The movement toward faculty status for librarians gained acceptance and accelerated during the 1970s and 1980s. However, debate continues on Betsy Park is Assistant Head of the Reference Department and Robert Riggs is Regents Professor of Higher Education at Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee 38152. This study was supported by the Memphis State University Center for the Study of Higher Education. The authors thank Barbara Reason, Graduate Assistant, for help with the tables, and George Relyea, MSU Computer Services, for assistance with the statistics. 275 276 College & Research Libraries whether the faculty model is appropriate for academic librarians. Gemma DeVinney and Mary Reichel summarize the issues involved: The literature reveals continuing con- troversy as to the appropriateness of li- brarians being designated faculty on their campuses. Some librarians are phil- osophically opposed to adopting the identity of another profession. Others take issue with granting librarians faculty rank on more pragmatic grounds. For example, it is difficult for librarians to demonstrate national visibility as well as evidence of scholarly research and publi- cation in tenure dossiers, when they gen- erally have calendar year appointments and little free time to undertake research projects in their highly-scheduled work weeks.4 When academic librarians apply for ten- ure or promotion, they are judged as fac- ulty, not as librarians. Surveys of the literature of the faculty status movement conclude that academic librarians remain ambivalent in their support for full faculty status. Some advantages exist in faculty status, but writers also recognize that fac- ulty status may involve additional perfor- mance expectations (such as publication), often without appropriate adjustments in current responsibilities. Librarians should consider looking to a career model that is different than that of teaching faculty. The principal professional organization for academic librarians, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), has monitored and responded to concerns throughout the evolution of the status issue. In particular, the ACRL Academic Status Committee developed the "Stan- dards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians" (adopted 1971, re- vised 1990) and the ''Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and University Librarians" (1987) as statements of principles against which librarians may review and assess procedures at their own institutions.5 The ACRL documents are based on the 1940 statement on principles on academic free- dom and tenure, developed jointly by the American Association of University Pro- - May1991 fessors and the Association of American Colleges. The 1940 statement serves as a baseline for virtually every tenure policy in the United States.6 This study responds to concerns and is- sues identified from the literature. Do ~ca­ demic librarians have faculty status? On what criteria are they judged in tenure and promotion decisions? Are standards for ac- ademic librarians similar to or different than those for teaching faculty? Can gener- alizations be made about academic librari- ans at institutions where librarians have faculty status as opposed to those at insti- tutions where they are without faculty sta- tus? REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE Recently, several excellent articles have reviewed the faculty status literature? There- fore, the authors will not attempt a com- prehensive literature review and will focus more narrowly on issues addressed in this study. ACRL' s "Standards for Faculty Sta- tus" states that librarians should have the same rights and responsibilities as teaching faculty, including the rights of self-determi- nation, peer review, membership in the aca- demic senate and university committees, equal salary scale, opportunity or tenure, promotion, research funds, and sabbatical leave.8 Estimates of the percentages of aca- demic librarians who have faculty status vary considerably. John DePew found that 78.8% have some degree of faculty status, while other estimates range from 35% to 59%.9 Even with faculty status, academic librarians do not necessarily have the same rights and privileges as teaching faculty. Li- brarians are rarely paid on the same salary scale; they may not be eligible for tenure and promotion through the academic ranks, or for sabbatical leave and research funds; and they routinely work 35 to 40 hours per week with 12- rather than 9- month contracts.10 According to ACRL' s ''Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures for Appoint- ment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and University Librar- ians," the library faculty member "who is a candidate for tenure shall be reviewed according to procedures set forth in estab- lished institutional regulations as applied to otherfacultyon thecampus." 11 Areas of eval- uation for faculty generally are anchored in effectiveness of teaching, scholarship, and service. For librarian faculty, evaluation is based on librarianship, scholarship, and ser- vice. Ubrarianship or job performance appears to have top priority in the evaluation process and usually is defined to include such activ- ities as reference duties, cataloging, or acqui- sition. In a weighted scale, job performance may count as 70% of a total evaluation scoreP Karen Smith, Tamara Frost, Amy Lyons, and Mary Reichel state that job per- formance is the "single most important cri- terion in awarding of tenure."13 Much of the literature concentrates on re- search and publication requirements. ''Pub- lish or perish" challenges and threatens both academic librarians and teaching faculty. Er- nest Boyer of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching asserts that it is a myth that all professors are researchers and, notes that professors "often felt trapped in a system where the work load and the reward system were disconnected." 14 Do li- brarians also suffer from an emphasis on research and publication? Smith and her col- leagues found that research and publication are gaining increasing importance for tenure decisions.15 Paula De Simone Watson theo- rized that publication requirements may hinder academic librarians in achieving ten- ure.16 Research and publication appear to be important factors in the review process. In researching publication requirements and tenure approval rates for academic librari- ans, W. Bede Mitchell and L. Stanislava Swieszkowski found that inadequate re- ~earch/publication was the most frequently cited reason that tenure was denied. How- ever, lack of- publication disqualified only 35 of the 329 librarians who had applied for tenure in the last 5 years, and these authors reject the premise that publication unduly hinders academic librarians in the tenure processP The study questions the ultimate role of research and publication, and the importance of this activity remains unclear. Studies on whether research and publi- cation are actually required for tenure and promotion add to the confusion. Estimates of the percentage of institutions with pub- St_atus of the Profession 277 lication requirements vary greatly. Whereas Jack Pontius reported that 97% of Association of Research Libraries (ARL) institutions with faculty status required research and publication, Ronald Rayman and Frank Goudy found this requirement in only 42% of these same libraries.18 When Joyce Payne and Janet Wagner repeated this study with librarians at large non-ARL universities, they found that 7% required publication, while 84% encouraged it.19 Publication does not appear to play a piv- otal role in the tenure and promotion pro- cess. It is one factor, but its importance is not clearly defined. Publication does not appear to play a pivotal role in the tenure and promotion process. Service is traditionally a third factor con- sidered. Higher education's involvement in public service dates from the 1862 Morrill Act, which founded land-grant colleges with a commitment to education and public service. For librarians, public service most often means working outside the academic community with users such as high school students, business people, and other researchers. Professional service applies to active participation in univer- sity and professional associations and learned societies. Although service is fre- quently mentioned as a criterion for ten- ure, the literature does not discuss it extensively, probably because, as Smith and her colleagues have found, service occupies a netherland, being neither the most nor the least important of the cri- teria.20 This factor is frequently mentioned, but its impact as a criterion is not clear. An additional concern is the necessity of a graduate degree beyond the Master of Library Science (M.L.S.). University faculty traditionally acquire a doctorate before their initial appointment or are required to do so before they ad vance in rank. For academic librarians, as for fac- ulty in disciplines such as nursing or the studio arts, the terminal degree is not so clearly defined. At the 1975 Midwinter meeting of the American Library Associ- 278 College & Research Libraries ation (ALA), the ACRL board of directors approved as policy the following state- ment: "The master's degree in library sci- ence from a library school accredited by the American Library Association is the appropriate terminal professional degree for academic librarians." 21 This policy was reaffirmed in the 1987 ''Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures for Appoint- ment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and University Librar- ians."22 Like their teaching counterparts, academic librarians are judged on job performance, research and scholarship, and service. John Olsgaard found that 91.9% of his sample of successful librarians had an M.L.S., while 34.6% had the M.L.S. plus a second master's, and only 7.5% had the M.L.S. plus a doctorate.23 According to the study, the additional graduate degree does not indicate success, and the M.L.S. may be the appropriate degree. Job announce- ments, particularly for positions above entry level, frequently recommend or give preference to the additional graduate de- gree, and, in practice, the M.L.S. is not universally recognized as the terminal de- gree by many college and university ad- ministrators.24 While the additional subject master's appears to be gaining rec- ognition, and possibly wide acceptance, it is required for tenure in few institutions.25 Further graduate work, as evidenced by the second subject master's, does not of itself ensure equality with other faculty. As one librarian stated, "We have a critical problem with the University administra- tion in that they will not accept the MLS plus master's as terminal degrees-thus our staff is frozen at assistant professor rank." 26 A review of the literature indicates a continuing need for research on criteria and procedures for tenure and promotion. Kee DeBoer and Wendy Culotta write, "If librarians are to be evaluated on the same basis as are teaching faculty, we need to know more about what will be expected of May 1991 us." 27 The present study gathers informa- tion on tenure and promotion policies and procedures for academic librarians across the United States. A picture of where li- brarians are now can provide a base for future decisions and stimulate ideas for future research. METHODOLOGY The authors developed a questionnaire regarding policies for appointment, ten- ure, and promotion of academic librarians. The questionnaire was based on an exten- sive review of the literature-in particular, the 1987 ACRL ''Model Statement of Cri- teria and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and University Librarians." The survey instrument contained 29 questions. The first section requested information about the institution itself: Carnegie classi- fication, enrollment, number of volumes in the library, and rank and status of library faculty. For the purposes of this study, fac- ulty status was restricted to those institu- tions at which librarians had eligibility both for tenure and for promotion through the academic ranks. The term "professional" was used to categorize professionallibrar- · ians with administrative, academic, or an- other status.28 A second section concerned appointment issues, including degree re- quirements and the role of peer review in the initial appointment process. The major portion of the survey concerned tenure and promotion criteria and procedures. Ques- tions asked if job performance, teaching, research and scholarly activity, and service were evaluated in the tenure or promotion review process. Additional questions fur- ther investigated how each area, such as research and scholarly activity, was defined and evaluated. The survey also contained questions regarding review levels for ten- ure and promotion, educational degrees, similarity of criteria for librarians. A panel of academic librarians and institutional chief academic officers reviewed and critiqued the questionnaire to clarify language and to en- sure its comprehensiveness. The authors made the recommended changes. In the spring of 1989, the authors mailed the questionnaire to the directors of 469 academic libraries selected from the 1987 Carnegie Foundation's A Classi- fication of Institutions of Higher Education. 29 The authors selected tbe study population by drawing a systematic random sample of institutions listed in the classification. Questionnaires were sent to one-third of the institutions in the categories of re- search universities, doctoral-granting in- stitutions, comprehensive universities and colleges, and liberal arts colleges. The total number of institutions in these classi- fications is 1,379. The sample size was 469 institutions, or one-third of the total popu- lation. A follow-up mailing three weeks after the initial communication urged non- respondents to complete and return the study questionnaire. Three hundred twenty institutions re- sponded; 304 responses were usable, yielding a 64.8% response rate. About 50 of the 304 respondents provided infor- mation only about their institution. For the most part, these were smaller librar- ies, with respondents indicating that ten- ure and promotion were not issues at the institution. Not all respondents an- swered every question. Institutions without faculty status answered ques- tions primarily in terms of promotion through rank, although some respon- dents equated tenure with continuing appointment. Many of these respon- dents reflected the comment of one, which stated that "the rules for tenure and promotion are not just informal, they are positively vague, particularly where librarians are concerned." Data gathered from the survey were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Two-way contingency tables, using procedure crosstabs, further analyzed the data. This article reports results only on the questions related to tenure and promo- tion criteria. For this paper, data are an- alyzed in terms of faculty status versus professional status. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE The sample included 35 institutions (11.5%) in the Carnegie classification .of research universities, 30 (9.9%) in doc- toral-granting universities, 95 (31.3%) in comprehensive colleges and universi- Status of the Profession 279 ties, and 144 (47.7%) in liberal arts col- leges. Public institutions accounted for 125 (41 %) of the responses and private institutions, for 179 (58.9%). Academic librarians at somewhat less than half (41.1 %) of these institutions have faculty status. Libraries in the survey serve in- stitutions with enrollments of fewer than 5,000 to more than 20,000, have collec- tions ranging from 25,000 to more than one million volumes, and have profes- sional staffs of one to 87 (with 90% in the 1-to-30 range) (see table 1). FINDINGS Of the 304 respondents, 125 (41.1 %) indicated that professional librarians at their institutions have faculty rank and status. This percentage closely parallels other reports by Thomas English (46.1 %), Rayman and Goudy (35%), Payne and Wagner (59.2%), Judy Horn (48%), ACRL (44%), and Mitchell and Swieszkowski (36.2%), 30 indicating that faculty status, with its privileges and responsibilities, affects the professional lives of about half the academic librarians in the United States. Like their teaching counterparts, aca- demic librarians are judged on job per- formance, research and scholarship, and service (see table 2). Activity in each area is considered at almost every institution; however, research and scholarship are not included as criteria at one-fourth of the institutions surveyed. Each evalua- tion area is discussed separately below. Job Performance Librarianship or job performance is clearly an important factor in staff eval- uation at all academic libraries. Of the 256 responses to this question, 243 (94.9%) indicated that job performance is evaluated for tenure or promoti9n or both. Analysis by status shows that 123 (98.4%) of those institutions with faculty status consider this factor in evaluation, as do 131 (91.6%) of those with profes- sional status (see table 3). Job perfor- mance is most frequently a component of the review process for promoting of librarians with professional status and for both tenure and promotion for those 280 College & Research Libraries May 1991 TABLE 1 INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS (N=304) Type of Control Public Private Carnegie Classification Research univ. I, Research univ. II Doct.-granting I, Doct.-granting II Comprehensive I, Comprehensive II Liberal arts I, Liberal arts II FTE Enrollment, Fall1988 Fewer than 5,000 5,000 to 9,999 10,000 to 14,999 15,000 to 20,000 More than 20,000 Volumes in Library 25,000 to 49,999 50,000 to 99,999 100,000 to 249,999 250,000 to 499,999 500,000 to 749,999 750,000 to 1,000,000 More than 1,000,000 Librarian Status Faculty rank and status Professional status librarians with faculty status. Chi- square analysis (.OS level of significance) indicates that the number of institutions with professional status at which job performance was not reviewed is signif- icantly greater than predicted by chance. Those with faculty status marked this option significantly less than predicted by chance. The authors had expected that librarians at institutions without faculty status would be more likely to be evaluated on job performance than li- brarians at those with faculty status, but this does not appear to be the case. These results may be subject to a variety of interpretations. Librarians who do not hold faculty status may have less clearly Total Sample Population No. % Total % Sample 497 125 882 179 104 35 109 30 595 95 571 144 202 48 23 11 20 6 43 122 70 10 9 44 125 179 25.0 20.3 33.7 27.5 16.0 25.2 41.1 58.9 11.5 9.9 31.3 47.7 66.4 15.8 7.6 3.6 6.6 2.0 14.1 40.1 23.0 3.3 3.0 14.5 41.1 58.9 defined criteria for promotion, there may be no written evaluation process, or tenure or promotion rna y not be an op- tion at the institution. The centrality of job performance is evident in that it is considered at more institutions than any other single factor. Smith, Frost, Lyons, and Reichel have also stressed the importance of librari- anship as a factor in evaluation, and published library faculty evaluation documents assign a 70% weight to job Status of the Profession 281 TABLE 2 TENURE OR PROMOTION EVALUATION CRITERIA For For Tenure Promotion For Tenure and Not Reviewed Only Only Promotion No. % No. % No. % No. % Job Performance (N=256) - 13 5.1 6 2.3 87 34.0 150 58.6 Research and Scholarly Activity (N=254) 65 25.6 5 2.0 60 23.6 124 48.8 Service (N=253) 32 12.6 6 2.4 69 27.3 146 57.7 TABLE3 JOB PERFORMANCE . (N=256) Total No. % Not reviewed 13 5.1 For tenure only 6 2.3 For promotion only 87 34.0 For tenure and promotion 150 58.6 performance.31 It is tempting to equate job performance with the teaching func- tion of other faculty and to note that what many librarians, like other teach- ing faculty, consider to be their primary role is only one of many factors reviewed in the evaluation process. Although the present study did not attempt to weigh the importance of the various factors in- volved, the centrality of job performance is evident in that it is considered at more institutions than any other single factor. Research and Publication Several items on the questionnaire ad- dressed research and publication re- quirements. An initial question asked whether librarians were evaluated on re- search and scholarly activities. Of the 254 respondents, 189 (74.4%) indicated that these activities were considered in the process. About half (122 responses, or 48%) had faculty status, and half (132 responses, or 52%) had professional sta- tus. One hundred three (almost 85%) of those institutions with faculty status re- viewed research and scholarship, while 86 (65%) of those in the professional cat- egory did so. In addition to asking if this activity was evaluated, questions in the Faculty Status Professional Status No. % No. % 2 1.6 11 8.4 0 0.0 6 4.6 0.8 86 65.6 122 97.6 28 21.4 survey asked if publication was required or encouraged. It is required by 38 (30.4%) of the respondents with faculty status, but by a significantly lower num- ber (16 responses or 11.7%) of those with professional status. About one-third of the faculty status institutions require that librarians publish for tenure or pro- motion. Publication is more likely to be encouraged than required in all institu- tions. One hundred fifty institutions (58.6%) reported that publication is en- couraged. Again, a significant difference exists between institutions with and without faculty status. Publication is en- couraged at 88 (70.4%) of the responding institutions with faculty status, but at 62 (47.3%) of those without faculty status. Research and publication play a promi- nent and defined role in faculty status institutions (see table 4). The data do, however, indicate that research and pub- lication are not universally required, even at faculty status institutions. Nine- teen (15.6%) of the responding faculty status institutions did not consider re- search or publication in the tenure and promotion process. Only one institution reported requiring or encouraging a specified number of publications. 282 College & Research Libraries May1991 TABLE4 RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ACTIVITY Total Faculty Status Prof. Status No. % No. % No . % Research and Publication Reviewed (N =254) 189 74.4 103 84.4 86 65.2 Not reviewed 65 25.6 19 15.6 46 34.8 Publication Required (N=262 54 20.6 38 30.4 16 11.7 Not required 208 79.4 87 69.6 121 88.3 Encouraged (N=256) 150 58.6 88 70.4 62 47.3 Not encouraged 106 41.4 37 29.6 69 52.7 Type of publication In-house (N=303) 100 0.33 52 41.6 48 27.0 Book reviews (N =304) 143 47.0 80 64.0 63 35.2 Book chapters (N=304) 154 50.7 89 71.2 65 36.3 Monographs (N=304) 155 51.0 88 70.4 67 37.4 Local regional journals (N=304) 157 51.6 90 72.0 67 37.4 National journals (N=304) 161 53.0 91 72.8 70 39.1 Refereed journals (N =304) 157 51.6 92 73.6 65 36.3 Nonrefereed journals (N=304) 137 45.1 79 63.2 58 32.4 Library science only (N=246) 14 5.7 5 4.0 9 7.4 All disci:elines (N=246) 138 56.1 83 66.9 56 45.1 ·Totals add up to more than 100% (respondents checked more than one response). Respondents were asked to mark the types of publications accepted for use in the promotion and tenure process at their institutions. Virtually all types of publica- tions are recognized. Publications that re- main in-house are less widely accepted at both faculty and professional status insti- tutions. For this question, respondents were instructed to circle the types of pub- lications accepted. Respondents that did not circle a response may have been indi- cating that publication was not a consider- ation at their particular institutions, rather than commenting on the acceptability of the publication. Not all librarians at faculty status institutions are evaluated on the basis of research and publication. For ex- ample, 92 (73.6%) of the faculty status in- stitutions accept publications in refereed journals. The remaining 33 (26.4%) that did not choose this answer may be indicat- ing that publication was not important, rather than expressing dissatisfaction with refereed journals. Rayman and Goudy found publication to be required in 14.7% of the institutions, encouraged in 60%, and neither required nor encouraged in 25%.32 In Payne and Wagner's replication of the study, 7% re- quired publication, 84% encouraged it, and 9% neither required nor encouraged it.33 Mitchell and Swieszkowski correlated publication with tenure approval rates. Of the 81 institutions where librarians were eligible for tenure,46.9% required evidence of research and publication for tenure, but 53.1% required no such evidence. 34 While the present study supports other investiga- tions indicating that research and publica- tion are factors in the tenure and promotion process, it points more emphatically to the problems encountered by academic librar- ians looking for guidance in this process. Research and publication generally are Status of the Profession 283 TABLE 5 SERVICE ACTIVITY (N=304) Total No. University CMTE 193 Reg./Natl. CMTE 173 Elected office 158 Consultation 125 Other 52 considered in the evaluation process, but in practice, the expectation may not be explic- itly defined. Service Public or professional service is service to the academic or professional commu- nity. Of the 253 responses, 221 (87.4 %) evaluated public or professional service. Of the 125 institutions with faculty status, 121 (96.8 %) indicated that service was evaluated for tenure and promotion, while 100 (78.1 %) of the professional status insti- tutions-included this criterion. Only 32 in- stitutions (12.6%; 4 or 0.16% with faculty status, 29, or 11.5%, with professional sta- tus) indicated that service was not re- viewed. Of the entire sample (304 institutions), "service" included univer- sity committees in 193 (63.5%), participa- tion on regional or national committees in 173 (56.9 %), holding an elected office in 158 (52 %), and consultation in 125 (41.4 %). Other service categories mentioned by re- spondents included advisiri.g, community service, and related activities. A break- down of these figures (see table 5) indi- cates that this criterion, like that ofresearch and scholarship, is more prominent in fac- ulty status institutions. Smith, Frost, Lyons, and Reichel recog- nized and discussed the service component in tenure decisions. Their respondents were somewhat inconclusive about the im- portance this factor played, ranking it as neither the least nor the most important of the criteria.35 In examining institutional use of the tra- ditional evaluation triad for tenure and promotion decisions-librarianship, re- search and publication, and service-a hi- % 63.5 56.9 52.0 41.4 17.1 Faculty Status Prof. Status No. % No. % 106 84.8 87 48.6 91 72.8 82 45.8 85 68.0 73 40.8 69 55.2 56 31.3 27 21.6 25 14.0 erarchy emerges. Currently, librarian- ship and service appear to be more fully integrated into the tenure and promo- tion evaluation process. Librarianship, or job performance, is at the top, evalu- ated at almost 95% of the institutions surveyed. Service is evaluated at 87% of the institutions . Research and publica- tion occupy a lower status, being a factor at 74% of the institutions. Educational Requirements An additional factor often considered is graduate degrees beyond the M.L.S. Three survey questions addressed this issue. One asked if the M.L.S. was suffi- cient for tenure and for promotion to assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor. Two other questions asked if a second master's or a doctorate was required for tenure or promotion. Respondents were requested to mark all options that applied. More than half of the institutions surveyed do not require a second master's to meet tenure and promotion criteria. For the total population, the M.L.S. was sufficient for tenure at 144 institu- tions (37.7), for promotion to assistant professor at 143 (47.2 %), to associate pro- fessor at 103 (34%), and to full professor at 27 (8.9%) . One hundred eighty-one (59.5%) of the respondents reported that a second master's was not required. Sig- nificantly, more than half of the institu- tions surveyed do not require a second 284 College & Research Libraries May 1991 TABLE 6 EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS: FACULTY STATUS INSTITUTIONS (N=125) M.L.S. No. Tenure 87 Instructor 84 Asst. prof. 81 Assoc. prof. 62 Professor 47 Not required 1 master's to meet tenure and promotion criteria, although the second master's becomes more important as a criterion at the higher academic ranks. The question of whether a doctorate was required yielded similar results. Only 4 institutions (1.3%) reported that a doctorate was required for tenure, 3 (1 %) for assistant professor, 15 (4.9%) for associate professor, and 45 (14.8%) for full professor. Again, a majority (195, or 64%) of the respondents stated that a doctorate was not required at any level. Table 6 breaks down these figures for faculty status institutions. These figures indicate a slight trend toward requiring of additional graduate degrees in the promotion process, a trend more marked for librarians with faculty status. Many respondents noted that if a particular degree was not specifically required, it was encouraged and would strengthen the faculty member's application for ten- ure or promotion. Additional graduate work appears to be helpful to, rather than required for, candidates' applica- tions for tenure or promotion. Similarity of Criteria with Teaching Faculty Are criteria for library faculty the same as those for other teaching faculty? There were 246 responses to this ques- tion. Of this group, 118 (47.9%) said that criteria were the same for tenure, promo- tion, or both, while 128 (52.3%) indicated that they were different in SO:IJle respect. The percentages were greater for institu- % 70.2 67.7 65.3 50.0 37.9 0.8 M.L.S. Plus Other Doctorate No. % No. % 19 15.2 2 1.6 3 2.4 0 0.0 17 13.6 2 1.6 25 20.0 8 6.4 19 15.2 31 24.8 85 68.0 92 73 .6 tions with faculty status. Seventy-three percent (89) of the 122 responses indi- cated that criteria for librarians were the same as those for teaching faculty, while only 20% (24 institutions) relayed that they were somehow different (see table 7). In contrast, 23.4% (29) of the institu- tions where librarians had professional status indicated that the criteria were the same, and more than two-thirds (84 re- sponses, or 67.7%) stated that they were different. Previous research on this subject yields widely different conclusions. On the one hand, Davidson, Thornson, and Stine surveyed libraries in t?e Rocky Mountain region and found identical tenure requirements in 70% of their sam- ple.36 On the other hand, English's study yielded similarities in 16.9% of the ARL libraries, with further analysis indicat- ing a mix of professional and faculty criteria. English concluded that criteria are never the same and that there are "two distinct sets of criteria: one set de- signed to measure performance as li- brarians, and the other set designed to measure performance as faculty." 37 The reader should note that this is certainly true for all faculty in any institution of higher education and might be re- worded to recognize differences among faculty members in various disciplines. It is interesting to speculate on the vari- ations in evaluation criteria attributable to different disciplines. For example, chemistry faculty may be judged against slightly different criteria than are faculty Status of the Profession 285 TABLE 7 TENURE AND PROMOTION POLICIES: SIMILARITIES BETWEEN LIBRARIANS AND TEACHING FACULTY Total (N=246) No. Same for tenure 4 Same for promotion 19 Same for both 95 Different 108 Other 20 in English, art, or the allied health fields. A number of respondents in this study rec- ognized these differences. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The present study reports the findings of a 1989 survey sent to library directors randomly selected from colleges and uni- versities across the United States. The pur- pose of the study was to elicit information regarding policies and practices for tenure and promotion in the academic ranks for librarians. In summary, the results of the study confirm significant differences in in- stitutional policies and practices for tenure and promotion between faculty status and nonfaculty status institutions. Nonfaculty status institutions responded primarily in terms of practices for promotion of librari- ans, although a number of respondents equated continuing appointment with ten- tire. Virtually every institution evaluates on the basis of job performance. Institutions at which librarians hold faculty status, how- ever, are more likely to review candidates on the basis of research and publication, professional or academic service, and grad- uate work beyond the M.L.S., in addition to job performance. Librarians at almost 85% (103) of the faculty status institutions are evaluated on research and scholarship. In contrast, only 65% (86) of the profes- sional status institutions evaluate librari- ans by these criteria. Most respondents (208, almost 80%) indicated that while scholarship may be considered, it is not actually required. Service is a component at 97% (121) of the faculty status institutions, and at 78% (100) of the professional status institutions. It is interesting to note that at % 1.6 7.7 38.6 43.9 8.1 Faculty Status Prof. Status (N=122) ((N=124) No. % No. % 1 0.8 3 2.4 3 2.5 16 12.9 85 69.7 10 8.1 24 19.7 84 67.7 9 7.4 11 8.9 both types of institutions, service is more frequently a factor than research and publication. Librarians, as members of a service-oriented profession, may more readily accept service as a component in the review process. Faculty status is associated with stricter, more clearly articulated and defined criteria for promotion and tenure. However, even with these clearer requirements, many areas are still fuzzy. Publication, for example, is encouraged rather than required and virtu- ally any type of publication may be accept- able. Service activity is similarly vague and encompasses a variety of activities on the university, local, regional, and national lev- els. While there should not be a checklist of . tenure or promotion criteria, guidelines should be developed. These guidelines must be accepted by the individuals responsible for decisions, by the profession, and by the institution. Librarians entering the profes- sion or changing employment should exam- ine institutional practices to decide whether these practices inhibit or promote their own professional development. The data reveal some interesting findings with regard to research and publication. Sev- eral survey respondents expressed concern about publication requirements. Indeed, re- search and publication has been hotly de- bated at conferences and in the library literature. The "publish or perish" trap is often directly associated with faculty status. Data gathered in this study suggest that this concern may be somewhat exaggerated, and earlier studies indicating that librarians have trouble achieving tenure or promo- tion because of an overemphasis on re- search and publication may overstate the 286 College & Research Libraries problem.38 It is true that librarians at farulty status institutions are evaluated on research and publication, but there is nothing to indi- cate that there is an undue emphasis on this activity. More than two-thirds (87, or 70%) of . institutions with farulty status do not require that librarians publish, and a small number of these (19, or 16%) do not review publica- tion activity. Librarians are encouraged to publish (according to 88, or 70%, of the fac- ulty status institutions) and it is considered in the evaluation process, but publication is only one among several factors. In addition, although publication may be associated with farulty status, many librarians who do not have farulty status are also expected to publish. A majority (86, or 65%) of the pro- fessional status institutions evaluate research and publication, although only a few (16, or 11.7%) actually require it. These data do not indicate that publication requirements rep- resent major impediments to academic li- brarians seeking tenure or promotion. Furthermore, publication activity is notre- served for faculty status institutions. Publi- cation appears to be gaining acceptance among librarians at all types of institutions, but it is not universally recognized. The concern expressed by many librarians that research and publication are over- . emphasized and are attributes of fac- ulty status is not completely supported by the current research. Future research should move beyond the farulty /nonfarulty issue to examine other factors influencing tenure and pro- motion decisions. Not all faculty are the same, and their diversity may be attrib- uted to the institutions and academic dis- ciplines to which they belong. In an important study, Burton Clark notes that the 50 state systems of higher education and the 1,500 private institutions are not coordinated, with the result that "the evo- lution of the professorate's institutional setting has an unplanned logic born of the system itsel£."39 This "unplanried logic" is reflected in institutional policies and pro- cedures. Data gathered in the present study can, and should, be analyzed by type of control (public versus private) and by Carnegie classification to examine dif- ferences that might be attributable to the institutional level. Evaluation criteria are May 1991 different in large research . universities than in small liberal arts colleges. Public and private institutions differ in their missions, which are reflected in institu- tional policies and practices. These dif- ferences should be as apparent in the evaluation of librarians as they are in the evaluation of other faculty. Studies indicating that librarians have trouble achieving tenure or promotion because of an over- emphasis on research and publication may overstate the problem. Even at a given institution; differences among faculty may be associated with their subject or discipline affiliations. For example, differences between faculty in the humanities and the sciences exist. On the one hand, a chemist at one university shares a professional identity with all chemists, whether associated with an aca- demic institution or the industry. On the other hand, the chemist identifies with in- dividuals in a specialty such as organic chemistry or biochemistry. Expectations and requirements in organic chemistry may be slightly different than those in bio- chemistry and are certainly different than those in sociology, English, or librarian- ship. Clark notes that "with the growth of specialization in the last century, the dis- cipline has become everywhere an impos- ing, if not dominating, force in the working lives of the vast majority of academics."40 Librarians function in academic, public, school, and special library settings. Each group has its own expectations of excel- lence and success. Academic librarians are still in the process of defining these profes- sional expectations. How are academic li- brarians different from or similar to other librarians or other faculty? Criteria out- lined in the ACRL Academic Status Committee's "Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures" and "Standards for Fac- ulty Status" provide excellent general guidelines for librarians to establish their own criteria and to adapt these criteria to their particular institutions. Academic li- brarians need to acknowledge that they are different than other faculty, just as his- tory professors are different than engineer- ing faculty. Almost half (118, or48%) of the respondents to the question regarding sim- ilarity of criteria for librarians and other faculty stated that criteria were the same for both groups. Respondents with faculty sta- tus were even more positive, with almost three-fourths (89, or 73%) indicating that criteria were the same. One respondent wrote that the criteria differed in "the same sense as those [policies and procedures] applicable to faculty in Arts/Sciences, Law, Engineering, etc. differ. Each academic unit has specific requirements which am- plify I expand general University guide- lines." In any academic institution the broad criteria are the same for all faculty members, but the application of these criteria will differ somewh~t for history faculty, chemistry fac- Status of the Profession 287 ulty, and library faculty. Academic li- brarians are challenged to acknowledge and clarify these differences. The results of the present study indicate that there are differences in evaluation practices between faculty status and non- faculty status institutions. Recognition of differences, however, does not imply a causal relationship, and further study should be performed to examine and iden- tify other factors influencing this process. The role, function, and responsibilities of academic librarians have changed and will continue to change. With these changes comes the challenge to librarians to define their positions in the academic community and to develop guidelines for their profes- sion. Librarians will be evaluated, and if the criteria are not defined by librarians, they will be defined by others. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Commission on Academic Tenure in Higher Education, Faculty Tenure: A Report and Recommendations by the Commission on Academic Tenure in Higher Education (San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973), p.21-22. 2. W. E. Henry, "The Academic Standing of College Library Assistants and Their Relation to the Carnegie Foundation," Bulletin of the American Library Association 5:259-63 (July 1911). 3. Virgil F. Massman, Faculty Status for Librarians (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1972), p.97-102. 4. Gemma DeVinney and Mary L. Reichel, "Faculty Status: Lessons from the Past," in Building on the First Century: Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, ed. by Janice C. Fennell (Chicago: ACRL, 1989), p.l2-14. 5. Association of College and Research Libraries Academic Status Committee, "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians," C&RL News 33:210-13 (Sept. 1972); ACRL Academic Status Committee, "ACRL Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians: A Draft Revision," C&RL News 51:402-04 (May 1990); ACRL Academic Status Committee, "Model Statement of Criteria and Proce- dures for Appointment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and University Librarians," C&RL News 48:247-54 (May 1987). 6. Association of College and Research Libraries. "Academic Freedom and Tenure, State- ment of Principles, 1940," Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors 27:42-43 (Feb. 1941). 7. See Emily Werrell and Laura Sullivan, "Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: A Review of the Literature," College & Research Libraries 48:95-103 (Mar. 1987); Kee DeBoer and Wendy Culotta, "The Academic Librarian and Faculty Status in the 1980's: A Survey of the Literature," College & Research Libraries 48:215-23 (May 1987); Janet Krompart and Clara L. DiFelice, "A Review of Faculty Status Surveys, 1971-1984," Journal of Academic Librarianship 13:14-18 (Mar. 1987). 8. ACRL Academic Status Committee, "Standards for Faculty Status: Draft Revision," p.403-404. 9. The 78.8% estimate is found in John N . DePew, "The ACRL Standards for Faculty Status: Panacea or Placebo?" College & Research Libraries 44:125 (Nov. 1983); 35% in Ronald Rayman and Frank W. Goudy, "Research and Publication· Requirements in University Libraries," College & Research Libraries 41:43-48 (Jan.1980); 59.2% in Joyce 288 College & Research Libraries May 1991 Payne and Janet Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," College & Research Libraries 45:133-39 (Mar. 1984). 10. Lance Query, "Librarians and Teaching Faculty: Disparity within the System," Academe 71:13-16 (July-Aug. 1985); Thomas G. English, "Librarian Status in the Eighty-Nine U.S. Academic Institutions of the Association of Research Libraries: 1982," College & Research Libraries 44:199-201 (May 1983). 11. ACRL Academic Status Committee, "Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures," p.250. 12. Rachel Christopher and Jetta Culpepper, . "Library Faculty Evaluation: Criteria and Scoring Instrument," Murray State University, Kentucky (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service No. ED 284 583, 1987). 13. Karen F. Smith and others, "Tenured Librarians in Large University Libraries," College & Research Libraries 45:91-98 (Mar. 1984). 14. Carolyn J. Mooney, "Higher-Education Conferees Applaud Carnegie Plan to Broaden the Definition of Faculty Scholarship," The Chronicle of Higher Education 36:A1 + (April 11, 1990). 15. Smith and others, "Tenured Librarians," p.94. 16. Paula De Simone Watson, "Publication Activity among Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries 45:375-84 (Sept. 1977). 17. W. Bede Mitchell and L. Stanislava Swieszkowski, "Publication Requirements and Tenure Approval Rates: An Issue for Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries 46:249-55 (May 1985). In conjunction with this, it is interesting that both librarians and faculty members have similar difficulties; see Robert Boice, Jordan M. Scepanski, and Wayne Wilson, "Librarians and Faculty Members: Coping with Pressures to Publish," College & Research Libraries 48:494-503 (Nov. 1987). 18. Jack E. Pontius, "Faculty Status, Research Requirements, and Release Time" (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 183147, 1978); Rayman and Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements," p.45. 19. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication and Tenure," p.137. 20. Smith and others, "Tenured Librarians," p.94. 21. ACRL Board of Directors, "Highlights of the 1975 Midwinter Meeting," C&RL News 36:69 (Mar. 1975). 22. ACRL Academic Status Committee, "Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures," p.248. 23. John N. Olsgaard, "Characteristics of 'Success' among Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries 45:8 (Jan. 1984). 24. John Budd, "The Education of Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries 45:15-24 (Jan. 1984); and for example, William A. Moffet, "The Academic Job Crisis: A Unique Opportunity, or Business as Usual," College & Research Libraries 34:193-204 (May 1973). 25. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p.135, found the M.L.S. to be sufficient for tenure in 24 of 30 libraries, with two requiring the MLS plus a second master's, two requiring the M.L.S. plus credits, and one requiring an undefined "other," and none requiring a doctorate; Smith and others, "Tenured Librarians," p.92-93, identified the largest proportion of tenured librarians in large university libraries as having a bachelor's or master's degree in library science, and one-third as having a second master's or doctorate. 26. Russ Davidson, Connie Capers Thorson, and Diane Stine, "Faculty Status for Librari- ans: Querying the Troops," College & Research Libraries 44:414-20 (Nov. 1983). 27. DeBoer and Culotta, "The Academic Librarian and Faculty Status," p.200. 28. A precedent for the faculty and professional status distinction may be found in English, "Librarian Status," p.200. 29. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation. for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987). 30. English, "Librarian Status," p.201; Rayman and Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements," p.136; Judy Horn, "Peer Review for Academic Librarians and Its Application in ARL Libraries," in Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities: Proceedings of the Third National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, eds., Suzanne C. Dodson and Gary L. Menges (Chicago: ACRL, 1984), p.135-140; ACRL .. Status of the Profession 289 Academic Status Committee, "Academic Status Survey," C&RL News 12:171 (June 1981). 31. Smith and others, "Tenured Librarians," p.94; Christopher and Culpepper, "Library Faculty Evaluation," p.6; Harrington, et al., "Report of the Criteria," p.S. 32. Rayman and Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements," p.45. 33. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication and Tenure," p.135. 34. Mitchell and Swieszkowski, "Publication Requirements," p.252. 35. Smith, Frost, Lyons, and ReiChel, "Tenured Librarians," p.94-95. 36. Davidson, Thorson, and Stine, "Faculty Status for Librarians," p.418. 37. English, "Librarian Status," p.203-D4. 38. See for example, Frederick Isaac, "Librarian, Scholar, or Author? The Librarian's New Dilemma," Journal of Academic Librarianship 9:216-20 (Sept. 1983); Krompart and DiFelice, "Reviews of Faculty Status Surveys," p.15-16; DeBoer and Culotta, ''The Academic Librarian and Faculty Status," p.218. 39. Burton R. Clark, The ·Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds (Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation. for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987), p.23. 40. Ibid, p.25. How does your collection measure up? You need reliable quantitative data to justify collection management decisions. You need a flexible analysis system designed with your library's goals in mind. Introducing ........................ OCLC/ AM/COS Collection Analysis Systems. Collection Analysis CD compares your holdings against those of similar institutions, using a subset of the OCLC database on compact disc. Tape Analysis gives you a custom-designed MARC tape analysis for your library or group. A Tape Match against Books for College Libraries is also offered. OCLC/ AMIGOS Collection Analysis Systems Available exclusively in the U.S. from AMIGOS Bibliographic Council, Inc. 11300 North Central Expressway, Suite 321 Dallas, Texas 75243 (800)843-8482 (214)750-6130