weaver.p65


Conflict Resolution 25

25

Conflict Resolution: A Case Study
about Academic Librarians and
Faculty Status

Pat Weaver-Meyers

Pat Weaver-Meyers is Director of Information Management and Delivery in the University of Oklahoma
Libraries; e-mail: patwm@ou.edu.

The University of Oklahoma librarians underwent a dramatic challenge
to their faculty status in the 1990s. This article chronicles that challenge
and documents the events that led to the retention of faculty status by
the librarians. The event is analyzed in the context of conflict resolution
research. Conclusions suggest that a strong sense of service may help
to unify academic librarians in future conflicts about their ambiguous
status within the broader academic community. Third-party intervention
and alternative options are also strategies discussed.

onflict in the workplace is al-
ways challenging. Construc-
tive conflict associated with
technological change may be

stimulating and result in workplace in-
novation, but other conflicts can strain
relations among employees, lower mo-
rale, contribute to rumor mongering, and
generally create a negative climate.1 Cer-
tain activities are especially susceptible to
conflict. Evaluation activities, for ex-
ample, are frequently associated with con-
flict and can even lead to litigation when
employee and supervisor disagree. Aca-
demic librarians with peer evaluation tra-
ditions of promotion and tenure have a
built-in potential for conflict. Academic
institutions most likely have policy rem-
edies, such as an appeal system and/or
an ombudsperson. However, tenure de-
cisions that end up in appeal are likely to
have already done damage to relation-
ships and organizational climate.

Faculty status for academic librarians
has a complex history that includes past
conflict. Furthermore, this history has
never fully resolved the problem of librar-
ians’ status in the minds of nonlibrarian
faculty.2 Even the minds of librarians, as
evidenced by a variety of current statuses
(professional status, nontenured faculty
status, academic status, faculty status
without rank, and faculty status with
rank) are unsettled. An academic librar-
ian may move from one institution to
another and dramatically affect his or her
evaluation criteria. The following is a dis-
cussion of how some aspects of faculty
status among librarians may contribute
to potential conflict and how the result-
ant damage can be minimized. This dis-
cussion analyzes the upheaval of faculty
status for the University of Oklahoma li-
brarians that occurred in the last decade
with the intent of formulating some strat-
egies for coping with similar conflict.



26  College & Research Libraries January 2002

Within this case study are two major con-
flicts. The first is a conflict between the
university administration and the librar-
ians. That conflict creates a situation in
which subsequent conflict among the li-
brarians themselves becomes unavoid-
able.

Background
Many authors have studied faculty sta-
tus among academic librarians. The Aca-
demic Status Committee of Association of
College and Research Libraries (ACRL)
compiled a resource guide on the issue.

That guide includes bibliographies re-
vealing a long-standing debate in the pro-
fession.3 It seems safe to assume that
many academic librarians may retain con-
flict–generating perspectives related to
the inconsistent nature of librarians’ sta-
tus across academic campuses in the
United States. This article is not intended
to debate the value of faculty status for
academic librarians. That has been done
with regularity for decades. Although
recently quiescent, the debate may have
slowed because aging librarians have
simply migrated to those institutions with
a status they find most accommodating.
Consensus is still elusive, though, or
librarianship would be a more uniform
profession. Rather, because the debate
remains unresolved and recruitment of
new academic librarians is projected to
be difficult due to unfavorable demo-
graphics, future conflict is likely inevi-
table.4

The lack of consensus in the profession
is clearly demonstrated by Virginia Ves-
per and Gloria Kelley’s study of small and
medium-sized academic libraries. That
survey revealed significant inconsistency
in status among institutions. Only 51 per-
cent of respondents have faculty status,
and a smaller percent are actually eligible
for tenure. Further, 37 percent of the

group has academic rank, which means
that among those with faculty status, that
status is inconsistent across institutions.
Of those remaining respondents, 29 per-
cent have academic status, 39 percent
have administrative status, and 11 percent
have staff status.5 A recent ACRL study
reported by Shannon Cary mentions the
lack of a uniform definition and reveals
great variety in privileges conferred to li-
brary faculty such as tenure, promotion,
sabbaticals, and so on.6 Clearly, this is
muddy water for prospective academic
librarians about to be baptized into the
profession. It is probable that a new ini-
tiate may find it difficult to steer a clear
course because he or she may undertake
several career moves and find the waters
more or less navigable at different insti-
tutions. The story of librarians’ status at
the University of Oklahoma may offer
insight for the naïve sailor and reveal
some strategies for dealing with conflict.

Case Study: A History
The University of Oklahoma Libraries has
a rich and long tradition of faculty status
for librarians. Faculty status began under
the leadership of Arthur McAnally, direc-
tor of University of Oklahoma Libraries,
who, along with Robert Downs from the
University of Illinois Libraries, was a
groundbreaking, nationally recognized
proponent of faculty status for librarians
as early as the 1950s. McAnally originally
tried to get the University of Oklahoma’s
Faculty Senate to support faculty status
for his librarians but was denied in 1956.7

In 1967, he achieved his goal when fac-
ulty status was awarded through the
University Board of Regents, some of
whom were close personal acquaintan-
ces.8 After he achieved his objective, he
devoted himself to mentoring his librar-
ians to aspire fully to that status. His strat-
egy was wily, but his vision of the impor-
tance of faculty status was unshakable,
and he proceeded to steer his librarians
on toward meeting the challenges this
new status demanded. McAnally built a
high level of enthusiasm among his librar-
ians, who realized that the change in sta-

Academic librarians with peer
evaluation traditions of promotion
and tenure have a built-in potential
for conflict.



Conflict Resolution 27

tus afforded them benefits, such as sab-
baticals, previously unavailable. Not un-
til 1970 did McAnally finally gain the sup-
port of the Faculty Senate.9 It was then
that librarians and other nondepartmen-
tal faculty were given representation.10

By the 1980s, it was still not clear among
the nonlibrarian faculty that librarians
were faculty, as evidenced by the quizzi-
cal look many displayed when the issue
arose. However, nonlibrarian faculty had
their own identity problems due to increas-
ing pressures to publish or perish. Depart-
mental criteria for tenure and promotion
were toughening. No longer could a fac-
ulty member hope to gain tenure without
an established record of publication. Un-
fortunately, librarians lagged in their re-
search productivity compared with other
departments, perhaps because Arthur
McAnally was gone and the stimulus to
publish was less intense. The librarians
were comparable to library peers in pub-
lishing productivity, but that proved inad-
equate when two librarians’ dossiers were
reviewed by the campuswide tenure com-
mittee in 1986. Rather than ruling on the
dossiers, as was its charge, the committee
recommended that the provost review
University Libraries’ promotion and ten-
ure criteria. Ultimately, the provost granted
tenure to one librarian and offered the
other librarian professional status. Yes, that
is right. In a unilateral decision, taken with-
out consultation, an uncomfortable dual
status was begun. It suggested that librar-
ians could successfully perform their du-
ties without faculty status. This ruling,
humane in some ways, turned up the heat
on a pot that would eventually boil over
university-wide.

In 1990, the librarians’ status again
came under assault, as another campus
committee turned a critical light on the
question. Led by faculty from a depart-
ment served by the newly established
professional librarian position, the Uni-
versity Program Review Committee,
charged with regular examination of de-
partments across campus, produced a re-
port stating that tenure was inappropri-
ate for library positions. In November of

that same year, with faculty status now
under serious fire, the University Librar-
ies dean in conjunction with a committee
from the libraries attempted to defend
faculty status. Their response analyzed
peer institutions, the majority of which
did have faculty status for librarians, and
stated the advantages of that status to the
university. The report suggested that the
librarians were being targeted because of
gender discrimination:

We include this statement of the
value of faculty status for librarians
to emphasize our commitment to
the professional-ization of our field.
The professions generally defined
as “women’s fields” are often sub-
jected to repeated challenges be-
cause of unconscious and insidious
discrimination against minorities
and women. We know that the pro-
gram review committee shares our
concern and is committed to affirm
the fair review of all minority-domi-
nated fields throughout the univer-
sity. It is significant to note in pur-
suit of this aim that the FY89/90 fac-
ulty figures for OU show that female
UOL faculty represent approxi-
mately 10% of the tenured and ten-
ure track women faculty at the Uni-
versity of Oklahoma.11

Although believed to be a powerful
volley against the onslaught, the battle
continued primarily because it was now
clear that the university president, Rich-
ard Van Horn, supported the change. A
new book, Primer for University Presidents
by Peter T. Flawn, an acquaintance of
President Van Horn, was an influential
work of the period. In it, faculty status
for librarians was classified as “wholly
self-serving” and likely to diminish presi-
dential authority.12

Discussions on the issue with the ad-
ministration stressed that an alternative
clinical faculty status should be considered
if a change was inevitable. Unable to de-
rail the president’s resolve, a few months
later, in May 1991, the libraries’ dean was



28  College & Research Libraries January 2002

charged by the provost to develop a plan
“in consultation with appropriate library
faculty and staff that accomplishes or takes
into account the following: …a classifica-
tion that would be designated as clinical
faculty appointments…not tenured.”13 The
charge also stated that new recruits would
be hired as nontenured or professional
staff, existing faculty could remain tenured
or tenure track, change to professional or
to nontenure track. The plan had to be
completed by July 15, 1991.

If the library faculty had been shaken
before, they were now totally fractured.
Distinct groups appeared made up of
those who staunchly supported tenure-
track faculty status (most of whom were
already tenured, although one tenured
faculty member did not agree); those who
preferred the new clinical faculty status
without tenure (including at least one ten-
ured faculty member and some tenure-
track faculty who distrusted the fairness
of the campuswide tenure committee);
and those who distrusted their peers and
the campuswide tenure committee and
wanted to be removed from the peer re-
view process–given professional status.
As these groups coalesced, tensions in-
creased. The three groups jostled trying
to pull into their ranks any undeclared
librarian. Coffee breaks became strategic
planning sessions, and hallways were
populated with whispering enclaves that
hushed when a nonallied librarian passed
by. Some librarians kept their own coun-
sel, and others vacillated. In the mean-
time, new recruits were plunked into a
steaming cauldron with a different status
than their peers. Not surprisingly, some
felt betrayed and confused.

The University Libraries plan was sub-
mitted in June 25, 1991. Librarians
“chose” their preferred status, with ten
selecting non-tenure-track appointments
and twelve remaining in tenure-track or
tenured positions. Within the following
year, seven new librarians would be
hired, all non-tenure-track appointments,
as required by the provost. In the back-
ground, a group of tenured library fac-
ulty worked to involve the Faculty Sen-

ate by filing a formal complaint with the
chair of the Faculty Appeals Board. The
complaint questioned the appropriate-
ness of the procedure used to change the
librarians’ status and suggested it was
inconsistent with the university’s Faculty
Handbook.14 Less than one month later, on
August 8, 1991, a new interim provost is-
sued a memorandum. The memorandum
stated how the new plan would be imple-
mented and that it would be dependent
on the outcome of a study by the Faculty
Senate. The Faculty Senate study would
review “consecutive term regular faculty
appointments, toward the goal of adding
such a faculty appointment category for-
mally to the Norman campus Faculty
Handbook.”15 Consecutive-term appoint-
ments allowed for multiple-year guaran-
teed employment, without tenure.

Although it considered consecutive-
term appointments, the Faculty Senate re-
ceived two letters, each representing the
polarized positions of a number of library
faculty. One, signed by five tenured library
faculty, supported the continuance of ten-
ure in the libraries.16 The second, signed
by seven untenured and one tenured fac-
ulty, supported consecutive-term appoint-
ments.17 After several months of delibera-
tion, the Faculty Senate came down with
an unequivocal position supported by
strong feelings: There would be no con-
secutive-term appointments. This position
was driven by a campuswide concern that
such a change would accelerate the weak-
ening of tenure and open the university to
“many sorts of potential administrative
abuse of the proposed type of faculty ap-
pointment.”18 Clearly, the abrupt adminis-
trative decision to remove faculty status
for librarians and create an entirely new
category of academic appointment had
heightened fears among all faculty.

As a result, the plan for changing librar-
ians’ status fell apart. At this point, there
were now librarians appointed to a status
that did not exist. Most librarians were
unsure how to interpret their situation.
Others were pleased that the threat to fac-
ulty status had been parried. The final sta-
tus of the librarians remained unclear.



Conflict Resolution 29

Upon receiving the senate’s pro-
nouncement, the university administra-
tion, now cognizant of the senate’s intense
feelings, changed its approach. The ad-
ministration charged the senate to exam-
ine faculty status for the librarians. The
senate appointed a committee made up
of librarians and regular faculty.

The Ad Hoc Committee to Review
Tenure within the University Libraries
began its work by surveying the librar-
ians. Not surprisingly, the opinions ex-
pressed by the librarians were highly
conflicted and colored with strong feel-
ings of mistrust. After all, they had been
forced onto a roller-coaster ride, nause-
ated, and never let off. They now were
contemplating the prospect of a continu-
ing ride with no clear indication of when
or how the new people at the controls
would react. Their emotions ran the
gamut from despair to seething anger
accentuated by mistrust. The mistrust
encompassed the administration, one
another, the library administration,
nonlibrarian faculty, the tenure process,
the campuswide tenure committee, and
the pollsters themselves.

The committee continued its delibera-
tions through the spring of 1993. Its final
report was presented to the senate in
April. Before that, it was circulated to the
librarians. The report, which was adopted
by the senate with a vote of thirty-five to
two with one abstention, supported ten-
ure for librarians. During the debate,
some faculty senators repeated that they
did not believe the librarians engaged in
teaching. However, others pointed out
that collection development and student
contacts represented teaching, but with-
out credit-hour production. Others evi-
denced serious concern about the danger-
ous precedent set by an administrative fiat
removing faculty status.

 The adopted committee report recom-
mended a rewrite of the tenure criteria,
conversion of non-tenure-track back to
faculty status with extended probation-
ary periods for tenure consideration, and
establishment of a tenure dossier state-
ment, as follows:

The University has determined that
academic librarians are eligible for
the award of tenure. And while it is
true that the accomplishments of
every candidate for tenure within the
University must be evaluated on the
basis of criteria developed by his or
her academic unit and approved by
the Provost, it is worthwhile to re-
mind those making formal recom-
mendations in the case of librarians
that their professional responsibili-
ties and duties are, in some impor-
tant ways, different from those of
many other members of the faculty.
In their case, therefore, it is particu-
larly important that each librarian’s
activities during the probationary
period be measured carefully
against the expectations set forth in
the formal criteria established by the
University Libraries and approved
by the Provost of the University.

The committee also recommended the
appointment of an outside monitor to as-
sist in implementing the recommenda-
tions.19 Not all librarians concurred with
the recommendations. At least three dis-
agreed so strongly that they sent a for-
mal complaint to the Faculty Senate chair,
which repeated their preference to retain
the non-tenure track they chose in the
summer of 1991.20 Other non-tenure-track
librarians felt betrayed but complained
less directly.

In August 1993, a newly appointed
provost issued a memorandum stating
that the president had accepted the ad hoc
committee’s report. However, the follow-
ing clause made adjustments for the non-
tenure-track librarians and evidenced
some institutional concern for potential
legal claims:

As the Library faculty works
through these activities, the Univer-
sity must consider the prior actions
of the campus administration. Mem-
bers of the Library faculty were
given the opportunity to change
appointment status and some fac-



30  College & Research Libraries January 2002

ulty opted for clinical faculty ap-
pointments. Recent Library faculty
appointments were made under a
non-tenure-track option. In order to
be fair to the people who have
worked in the Library or have been
appointed during this period, the
following opportunities will be of-
fered:

1. Library faculty with non-tenure-
track appointments will be given the
opportunity to change to tenure-
track faculty appointments with the
option to include accumulated years
of service at the University toward
tenure or begin the six-year proba-
tionary period. If they choose not to
convert to the tenure-track appoint-
ment, their positions will be con-
verted to a professional staff ap-
pointment.

2. Tenure-track Library faculty
who chose clinical faculty appoint-
ments will be given the opportunity
to continue their original tenure-
track appointments. The tenure-
track faculty will have the option to
proceed with the tenure review pro-
cess according to their original
schedule or to negotiate individu-
ally for an extension of the proba-
tionary period for up to two years.
If a person chooses not to proceed
with the tenure-track option, the
position will be converted to a pro-
fessional staff appointment.21

When the roller coaster finally stopped
in January 1994, the University Libraries
roster included sixteen faculty and ten
professional librarians. Of the sixteen fac-
ulty, nine were previously tenured and
others negotiated varying probationary
periods. Of the ten professionals, one had
been a tenured faculty member. The rest
had been either hired as professionals or
chosen non-tenure-track positions early
in the conflict. Rancor within the librar-
ies remained. Professionals were ex-
cluded from regular faculty meetings.

Later, several professional positions re-
verted to tenure track, due to resignations.
Eventually, all positions will revert to ten-
ure-track faculty positions. At this time,
only six librarians remain professionals.

New hires and retirements have done
much to reduce internal conflict, although
the remaining professionals occasionally
comment about feeling disenfranchised.
New faculty are highly anxious about
meeting research tenure criteria, but those
library faculty who have been considered
in the past few years have all succeeded
in their bids for tenure. Additional re-
search support funds have been provided
by the libraries’ dean to assist librarians
in meeting tenure research criteria.
Campuswide, most nonlibrarian faculty
recognize that librarians have faculty sta-
tus.

 Informal discussions about faculty sta-
tus and recruitment suggest a growing
concern that new librarians will opt for
institutions without publishing require-
ments. However, proponents of faculty
status are very wary of any suggestions
that might undermine their hard-won vic-
tory. Some new recruits have opted to
leave because publishing requirements
were deemed too burdensome. Others
have met the challenge and continue to
build solid research records.

Learning from Conflict
The University of Oklahoma Libraries
case study invites some noteworthy ob-
servations regarding change theory and
conflict resolution. Change theory re-
search by Everett M. Rogers suggests that
the process of change is not complete until
“routinization” takes place. Stated an-
other way, the change is commonly rec-
ognized as the way things are.22 It seems
obvious that McAnally’s enthusiasm for
change to faculty status for librarians at
the University of Oklahoma failed to fully
routinize the concept. The initial rebuff
of the Faculty Senate, the weak research
productivity by the librarians, and the
lack of recognition of librarian faculty sta-
tus by nonlibrarian faculty in the early
1980s all point to an incomplete transi-



Conflict Resolution 31

tion. This is reinforced by the questions
concerning library tenure criteria raised
in 1986 and furthered by questions raised
in the program review document of 1990.
What may be more fundamental to the
development of the conflict, though, is the
evidence that faculty status was never
fully accepted by the librarians them-
selves. The strongest supporters were
hired by McAnally, whereas the majority
who preferred an alternative status were
not mentored by him.

The ratio of 16/10 (librarians that chose
faculty status/librarians that chose pro-
fessional status), or 62 percent to 48 per-
cent, reveals that as the roller coaster
slowed to a stop, the numbers closely re-
flected the status as it is distributed
among the profession nationwide. In pub-
lic institutions, 69 percent of librarians in
Vesper and Kelley’s study were eligible
for tenure (the least ambiguous “faculty
status”).23 It appears that the ambiguity
within the profession as a whole is still
present and proportionately mirrored
within the University of Oklahoma Li-
braries. During the conflict, opinions were
not changed but, rather, were hardened.
How then, when significant threat from
the outside fails to unite librarians, can
this continuing polarization be managed?
Also, what characteristics of the conflict
abated or escalated that polarization? Fi-
nally, is there a solution to the ambiguity
of librarians’ status within academe, and
what would have to be done to foster
unity in the profession? Or, can we suc-
cessfully live with the ambiguity in the
upcoming decade?

Heightened Conflict
According to Morton Deutsch, several
factors underlie conflict. Three of those
factors are quite evident here and served
to escalate this particular conflict: issue
control, issue rigidity, and issue central-
ity. Issue control is controlling what is
perceived to be at stake (i.e., something
with limited or short-term importance or
something affecting rights and principles
that “transcend time and space”).24 In this
instance, the perception that the issue af-

fected the rights and principles of librar-
ians, and even the rights of nonlibrarian
faculty, made it more difficult to resolve.
Second, when the ability to use a com-
promise status failed (faculty status with-
out tenure), the issue became more rigid
because possible alternative solutions
were narrowed. The conflict was further
intensified by the centrality of faculty sta-
tus. This conflict pointedly infringes on
things such as perceived socioeconomic
status and self-esteem. Such matters will
always be hotly contested.

Personalities affected how the conflict
escalated, as some librarians became more
emotionally invested than others. This
confirms the assertion of Raymond A.
Friedman and others that how an indi-
vidual handles a conflict is related to per-
sonality characteristics that act to increase
or decrease stress.25 But the solution to the
issue was dominated by three things:
third-party intervention, a cooperative
process on unrelated issues, and the re-
formulation of an alternative option, all
factors that Deustch indicated help re-
solve conflict.26

Conflict Resolution
Third-party Intervention
Inclusion of the Faculty Senate was the
first step toward resolution of the conflict
between university administration and
librarians. As Deustch pointed out, “Third
parties who are prestigeful, powerful and
skillful may deliberately facilitate a con-
structive resolution of a conflict by using
their prestige and power to encourage
such a resolution and by helping provide
the problem-solving resources.”27 Fortu-
nately, the Faculty Senate was in a posi-
tion to influence the administration and
to serve as a leader to the librarians. The
administration might overlook the com-

Library committees met, searches
were conducted, reports were
generated by librarians working
together, even though they otherwise
were actively warring on the faculty
status issue.



32  College & Research Libraries January 2002

plaints of a campus minority but could
not overlook the recommendations of the
official representative of all faculty. Fur-
ther, the Faculty Senate had a vested in-
terest in resolving the conflict—particu-
larly if the resolution furthered Faculty
Senate issues. The senate had serious con-
cerns about the administration usurping
faculty rights in general. Therefore, the
senate was the perfect third party, a group
highly motivated and with significant
political resources.

Cooperative Processes outside the Conflict
Without fail, during even the most suspi-
cious times, the librarians continued to
provide uninterrupted library services. In
fact, many library users were totally un-
aware of the conflict as were many librar-
ians in the state. Their ability to continue
service, as noted by the ad hoc commit-
tee report, was a crucial element in a posi-
tive resolution. “We were given the im-
pression that tensions have tended to
make the workplace unpleasant. How-
ever, it is a tribute to the sense of profes-
sional responsibility on the part of the
faculty and the Dean that these feelings
have not been allowed to disrupt the or-
derly functioning of the University Li-
braries.”28

Such activity ensured that the librarians
were constantly involved in cooperative
processes outside the conflict issues. Li-
brary committees met, searches were con-
ducted, reports were generated by librar-
ians working together, even though they
otherwise were actively warring on the
faculty status issue. The ad hoc committee
report further stated: “As a result of their
differences over this … faculty have come
to suspect the motives, the sincerity, the
good will, and even the capacity for fair-
ness of colleagues who have taken one
position or another.”29 Given such a dire
state it seems likely that the conflict would
have continued if the librarians’ sense of
professionalism had not encouraged them
to cooperate to provide services. That pro-
fessionalism and dedication forced re-
peated interactions with adversaries who
might otherwise never have interacted

positively. Although goodwill was clearly
in doubt, it never ceased to exist and the
opportunity to demonstrate goodwill in
other nonconflicted areas continued.

Alternative Options
The university administration became
quite creative in its final offer to resolve
the situation. Because the senate had
taken a very firm stand and many librar-
ians felt strongly that the university had
not fulfilled its contractual obligations,
flexibility was the only way to find a safe
trajectory. By offering both professional
and faculty status to those already hired
and forcing only new hires into faculty
status, the administration chose a wise
course. No current staff could claim they
had not received some concession, even
if they did not win on all fronts. New hires
were not yet there to complain.

The Future: Living with Ambiguity
Changing conditions within academe as a
whole are affecting perceptions about ten-
ure and tenure-track positions. The past
few years have seen both a change within
the University of Oklahoma and nation-
ally. In February 1999, the University of
Oklahoma Faculty Senate voted to rede-
fine research faculty positions, non-tenure-
track positions, but chose not to allow rep-
resentation on the senate for these
appointments.30 Such a departure from no
consecutive-term appointments, so
strongly opposed just five years earlier, is
remarkable. Also, the university adminis-
tration has recently defined renewable-
term appointments, without much campus
protest. This decade, it appears, has seen a
relaxation of the senate’s concern for ad-
ministrative abuses. A new administration
accounts for some of these changes, but
new demographics and recruitment chal-
lenges may be more convincing.

A demographic study by Stanley J.
Wilder shows academic librarianship to
be quite vulnerable to recruitment woes.
Wilder pointed outs that,

The retirement projections indicate
that retirements will have an enor-



Conflict Resolution 33

mous impact on ARL libraries over
the next 25 years. Between 1995–
2000, ARL libraries will lose 16 per-
cent of their population to retire-
ment. Of the remaining population,
another 16 percent will retire be-
tween 2000–2005, and 24 percent
between 2005–2010.31

These figures, along with current re-
cruiting difficulties caused by jobs far
outpacing new librarians, suggest that
some “adjusting” will need to take place
within the profession. Wilder made the
argument that these difficulties might
even force a salary increase.32 Another
possible development, which may arise
as competition for recruits among aca-
demic libraries increases, is the lessening
of tenure requirements. This might not
occur if standards among the profession
were equal. But considering how incon-
sistent faculty status is among libraries,
recruits will be able to choose to work
under the tenure demands they prefer. If
so, salaries and other perks among librar-
ies with more demanding tenure criteria
may have to be more generous. It seems
unlikely that new recruits, weighing
equal salaries and benefits, would choose
more rigorous job duties.

Such pressures could eventually
squeeze ambiguity from the profession.

More rigorous job duties and low sala-
ries have squeezed teachers out of com-
mon education. New librarians have
more and more alternatives and may de-
mand some changes in a profession
where salaries are low compared with
most other faculty appointments on cam-
pus. The nature of those demands will
depend on institutional culture, upcom-
ing generational values, economics, and
tradition. The speed of change may hap-
pen as quickly as consecutive-term ap-
pointments have reappeared at the Uni-
versity of Oklahoma, a mere five years.

Realistically, the academic library pro-
fession will have a more difficult time
maintaining ambiguity about who they
are, what they do, and where they fall
within the broader academic community.
This case study points to the importance
of support from the broader faculty and
reveals benefits from sharing status with
a politically powerful campus population.
However, it also points out that academic
librarians firmly retain conflict-generat-
ing identity ambiguity. Optimistically,
academic librarians maintain a strong
sense of service and professionalism that
serves as a unifying force through which
conflict can be minimized or overcome.
Nurturing this sense may help colleagues
find common ground on more divisive
issues.

Notes

1. Terry Bragg, “Ten Ways to Deal with Conflict,” IIE Solutions 3 (Oct. 1999): 36–37.
2. Gaby Divay, Ada M. Ducas, and Nicole Michael-Ostryk, “Faculty Perceptions of Librar-

ians at the University of Manitoba,” College & Research Libraries 48 (Jan. 1987): 27–35; Sherman E.
Pyatt, Josephine B. Williamson, and Edgar Williamson, “Faculty Status in South Carolina,” Col-
lege & Research Libraries News (Nov. 1989): 927–33; Devlin Feldman and Susan Sciammarella,
“Both Sides of the Looking Glass: Librarian and Teaching Faculty Perceptions of Librarianship
at Six Community Colleges,” College & Research Libraries 61 (Nov. 2000): 491–98.

3. Susan Kroll, ed., Academic Status: Statements and Resources, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Academic
Status Committee, Association of College and Research Libraries, 1994).

4. Stanley J. Wilder, The Age Demographics of Academic Librarians: A Profession Apart (Wash-
ington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1995).

5. Virginia Vesper and Gloria Kelley, Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic Librarians:
Clip Note #26 (Chicago: ALA, 1997), 2.

6. Shannon Cary, “Faculty Rank, Status, and Tenure for Librarians: Current Trends,” C&RL
News 62 (May 2001): 510–11, 520

7. University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Journal 4-1956, “Status of Professional Librar-
ians,” 4–5. Available from the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Archives.

8. Arthur McAnally, University of Oklahoma Libraries, Administrative Memoranda, “Sta-



34  College & Research Libraries January 2002

tus of Professional Librarians,” March 6, 1967. Available from the University of Oklahoma Li-
braries, Office of the Dean.

9. University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Journal 3-1970, “Faculty Representation on the
University Senate,” 3. Available from the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Office.

10. It is worth noting that during consideration of the representation issue, the Faculty Senate
was chaired by Duane Roller. Dr. Roller held a faculty appointment through the History of Sci-
ence Department but also was curator of the History of Science Collections in the libraries.

11. University of Oklahoma Libraries, “Response to Campus Program Review Panel Prelimi-
nary Report,” Nov. 13, 1990, 3. Available from the University of Oklahoma Libraries, Office of the
Dean.

12. Peter T. Flawn, A Primer for University Presidents: Managing the Modern University (Austin:
Univ. of Texas Pr., 1990), 122.

13. University of Oklahoma, Office of the Provost Memoranda, “Provost Program Review
Recommendations,” May 29, 1991. Available from the University of Oklahoma Libraries, Office
of the Dean.

14. Marcia Goodman et al., personal correspondence with Leonard R. Rubin, chair, Faculty
Appeals Board, July 11, 1991. Available from the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Office.

15. University of Oklahoma, Office of the Provost Memoranda, “University Libraries Fac-
ulty,” Aug. 8, 1991. Available from the University of Oklahoma Libraries, Office of the Dean.

16. Marcia Goodman, et al., personal correspondence with Richard Van Horn, president, Uni-
versity of Oklahoma, Aug. 29, 1991. Available from the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate
Office.

17. Dan Chandler, et al., personal correspondence with Faculty Senate, University of Okla-
homa, Oct. 11, 1991. Available from the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Office.

18. University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Journal 5-1992, “Report of the Faculty Senate Ad
Hoc Committee on Regular Non-Tenure-Eligible Consecutive Term Faculty Appointments,” 5.
Available from the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Office.

19. University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Journal 4-1993, “ Final Report and Recommenda-
tions of the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee to Review Tenure within the University Librar-
ies,” 7. Available from the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Office.

20. John Lovett et al. , personal correspondence with Susan Vehik, chair, University of Okla-
homa Faculty Senate, Apr. 6, 1993. Available from the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate
Office.

21. University of Oklahoma Office of the Provost Memoranda, “Tenure Track Appointment
within the University Libraries,” Aug. 31, 1993. Available from the University of Oklahoma Li-
braries, Office of the Dean.

22. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations 4th ed. (New York: Free Pr., 1995), 399.
23. Vesper and Kelley, Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic Librarians, 3.
24. Morton Deutsch, The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes (New

Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Pr., 1973), 370.
25. Raymond A. Friedman, et al., “What Goes Around Comes Around: The Impact of Per-

sonal Conflict Style on Work Conflict and Stress,” International Journal of Conflict Management
11(Special issue 2000): 32–55.

26. Deustch, The Resolution of Conflict, 351–400.
27. Ibid., 376.
28. University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate Journal 4-1993, “ Final Report and Recommenda-

tions,” 3.
29. Ibid., 2.
30. Ibid.
31. Wilder, The Age Demographics of Academic Librarians, 42.
32. Ibid.