Welch.indd
Loosening the Ties that Bind:
Academic Librarians and Tenure
Jeanie M. Welch and Frada L. Mozenter
This article discusses the impact of faculty status and tenure on the
professional lives of academic librarians. Included are a literature review,
a discussion of the decline of tenure at academic institutions, and ex-
periences at three universities. This article also includes the results of a
survey that focused on the impact of faculty status and tenure on librarians’
participation in institutional governance, opportunities for professional
growth, and presence of a faculty library advisory committee. Based on
the results of this survey, the authors conclude that only faculty status
and tenure guarantee full integration in the university’s governance and
academic spheres.
aculty status and eligibility
for tenure for academic librar-
ians have been discussed and
debated for decades. Among
the issues discussed and debated are
the following: Do librarians “qualify”
as college and university faculty, and to
what extent should evaluation criteria
take into account differences in duties
and schedules? Does faculty status en-
hance librarians’ professional identity
on campus and thus provide for greater
campus involvement? Does it just trans-
late into additional burdens resulting
in “an artificial force-fi ing of activities
into an inappropriate mold” and in “a
fragmented profession, characterized
in part by teaching, research-conduct-
ing, nonserving Ph.D.s who ‘work’ in a
library’?”1 Should faculty status be no
more than a “potential vehicle for the at-
tainment of integration” where the real
issue is “academic credibility” and not
status?2 Does it mean that librarians, in
accepting equal access to university gov-
ernance, also must accept “the a endant
responsibilities of publishing and profes-
sional leadership”?3 Does faculty status
confer a benefit beyond the individual to
the library, the profession, and the insti-
tution?4 Conversely, if faculty status and
tenure are not available, are there any
costs to the individual, the library, the
profession, and the institution? If faculty
status and tenure are not available, what
professional and structural changes are
required and how should these changes
be implemented?
Part of the discussion may rest in
defining terms. Tenure is defined “an in-
stitutional commitment to permanent and
continuous employment to be terminated
only for adequate cause (for example, in-
competence; moral turpitude; retirement
for reasons of age, mental or physical
disability; bona fide financial exigency)
and only a er due process. Tenure (con-
tinuous appointment) shall be available to
Jeanie M. Welch is a Business Reference Librarian in Atkins Library at the University of North Carolina
at Charlo e; e-mail: jmwelch@email.uncc.edu. Frada L. Mozenter is a Social Sciences Reference Librarian
in Atkins Library at the University of North Carolina at Charlo e; e-mail: flmozent@email.uncc.edu.
164
mailto:flmozent@email.uncc.edu
mailto:jmwelch@email.uncc.edu
Academic Librarians and Tenure 165
librarians in accordance with the tenure
provision of all faculty of the institution.”5
Defining faculty status has proved more
difficult. Janet Krompart used ALA’s
definition of “an official recognition by
an institution of postsecondary education
that librarians are part of the instructional
and research staff by conferment of ranks
and titles identical to those of faculty, and
commensurate benefits, privileges, rights,
and responsibilities.”6 The Association of
Research and College Libraries (ACRL)
defined faculty status as entailing “for li-
brarians the same rights and responsibili-
ties as for other members of the faculty,”
including “corresponding entitlement
to rank, promotion, tenure, compensa-
tion, leaves, and research funds.”7 In
1971, ACRL adopted the Guidelines for
Academic Status for College and University
Librarians; the guidelines were revised in
2002. Furthermore, the Board of ACRL
stated its continued support for “faculty
rank, status, and tenure for librarians.”8
Shannon Cary reviewed the findings from
ACRL’s 1999 survey, Trends in Academic
Libraries: Faculty Rank, Status, and Ten-
ure for Librarians, and found these nine
conditions as constituting faculty status.
They included:
• Librarians are assigned profes-
sional responsibilities;
• Librarians have a governance
structure similar to other faculties on
campus;
• Librarians are eligible for member-
ship in the faculty governing body;
• Librarians have salary scales that
are equivalent to those for other academic
faculty;
• Librarians are covered by the same
tenure policies as other faculty;
• Librarians are promoted through
the ranks via a peer review system;
• Librarians are eligible for leaves of
absence or sabbaticals;
• Librarians have access to funding
for research projects;
• Librarians have the same protec-
tions of academic freedom as other fac-
ulty.9
A Changing Reality
Although this philosophical debate con-
tinues, the conditions affecting faculty
status and tenure are evolving. For years,
librarians have tried “to define their
worth against a model that bears li le
resemblance to the ideal of the profes-
sion”10 and have o en “fallen short in the
comparisons.”11 Teaching faculty are deal-
ing with a similar conceptual problem,
mainly teaching versus scholarship and
publication. Data on staffing pa erns in
higher education confirm that full-time,
non-tenure-track appointments have been
increasing whereas tenure-track positions
are declining in all fields with the excep-
tion of business and engineering.12 Two
U.S. Department of Education studies
(1996 and 1998) reported that from 1975
to 1995 the proportion of full-time faculty
on contracts climbed from 19 percent
to 28 percent whereas those on tenure
track fell from 29 percent to 20 percent.13
The Department also reported that more
than one-half of all new full-time faculty
at four-year institutions are non–tenure
track. For example, Duke University has
instituted a model called “professors of
practice” for full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty with renewable contracts. They
are evaluated primarily on teaching and
are not required to do the same type of re-
search that the tenure-track faculty must
do. This group makes up about 10 percent
of Duke’s faculty. Emory University also
used this model for ninety positions.14
Some concerns and issues are strik-
ingly similar to those faced by the library
profession. Tenure is the “engine that
drives the scholarly process.”15 This is true
for academic librarians as well as “teach-
ing” faculty. However, tenure brings costs
to the university in the form of higher
salaries. These costs provide a “target
of opportunity” [for] “cost-cutting.”16
Moreover, tenure is the mechanism that
safeguards academic freedom in both the
form of scholarship and questioning ad-
ministrative practices and policies. When
Richard Moser, an associate secretary of
the American Association of University
http:positions.14
http:percent.13
http:engineering.12
166 College & Research Libraries March 2006
Professors, stated that separating profes-
sors into ranks based on research versus
teaching would lead to a plantation-style
system, he was asked: “But what if all
sides are happy with this arrangement?”
His response serves both nonlibrary fac-
ulty and librarians. The concern should
be “the health of the institutions over-
all.” 17
One model of change for academic
librarians is Susan Martin’s “two-track
approach to librarianship.” The premise
is that we must use performance levels
that form the backbone of the profession
as a basis of a new “self-definition” and
professional restructuring. She detailed
one approach as creating two distinct
categories, with possible nomenclatures
as “professional librarian” and “occupa-
tional librarian,” allowing the individual
to select the track appropriate for him- or
herself.18
A Tale of Three Academic Libraries
As stated by Julie J. McGowan and
Elizabeth H. Dow, “Because of perceived
inequities on the part of both library and
teaching faculty, a number of institutions
even reversed their stand on faculty status
for academic librarians and moved their
librarians to a non-faculty, professional or
administrative status.”19 What are the re-
alities when academic institutions change
the professional status and eligibility for
tenure of their librarians? This section
includes a review of three academic
libraries to reveal why such changes in
professional status occurred, how they
were handled, and the outcomes.
The University of Oklahoma, Norman
An excellent article by Pat Weaver-Meyers
chronicled how faculty status and tenure
were lost and then regained by librarians
at the University of Oklahoma.20 Librarians
at the University of Oklahoma received
faculty status from the University Board
of Regents in 1967. By the 1980s, all faculty
members were under increasing pressure
to publish and departmental criteria,
for both tenure and promotion, became
more exacting. Although publications by
librarians were comparable with peers,
in 1986, they were deemed unacceptable
by a campuswide tenure commi ee at the
time when two librarians were reviewed
for tenure. In 1990, the University Program
Review Commi ee issued a report, sup-
ported by the university president, stating
that tenure was inappropriate for library
positions. In 1991, the libraries’ dean was
directed to develop a plan incorporating
nontenured “clinical faculty” appoint-
ments. New hires would be classified as
nontenured or professional staff. Exist-
ing faculty could remain tenured, stay
on the tenure track, or switch to the new
classification. The plan was submi ed in
June 1991, with librarians choosing their
status: ten selected non-tenure-track ap-
pointments and twelve remained tenured
or on the tenure track. The following year
seven new non-tenure-track appointments
were made.
As this was occurring, a group of
tenured library faculty members filed
a complaint with the Faculty Senate.
Subsequently, the Faculty Senate issued
a report opposing consecutive-term ap-
pointments. The decision was based on
a campuswide concern that this would
weaken tenure and provide an opening
for “many sorts of potential administra-
tive abuse of the proposed type of faculty
appointment.”21 The university adminis-
tration then charged the Faculty Senate
with examining faculty status for librar-
ians. The Ad Hoc Commi ee to Review
Tenure within the University Libraries
issued a report in 1993 that supported
tenure for librarians. In August 1993, the
university administration accepted the
commi ee’s report and provided the fol-
lowing options for librarians:
• Library faculty with non-tenure-
track appointments were permi ed to
change to tenure-track faculty appoint-
ments with allowances made for years
employed under the prior status, or if
the individual did not want to change
tracks, the position would convert to a
professional staff appointment.
http:Oklahoma.20
http:herself.18
Academic Librarians and Tenure 167
• Tenure-track library faculty who
chose clinical faculty appointments were
permi ed to continue with their original
tenure-track appointment or change to a
professional staff appointment.
Through resignations and retirements,
all positions eventually are to revert to
tenure track.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg
An article by Edward F. Lener, Bruce
Pencek, and Susan Ariew discussed
faculty status for librarians at Virginia
Tech.22 The general faculty at Virginia
Tech included both “collegiate” (teaching)
faculty and “extra-collegiate” library fac-
ulty. Extra-collegiate library faculty were
eligible for “continued appointment” and
promotion via a process that paralleled
that of the teaching faculty but recognized
differences in responsibilities. Recom-
mendations for continued appointment
and promotion were made by a University
Promotion and Continued Appointment
Commi ee for Extra-Collegiate Faculty.
Extra-collegiate faculty were entitled to
the protections of academic freedom and
job security, and held academic ranks.
Promotion and tenure polices for extra-
collegiate faculty were in a document
developed by the Library Faculty Associa-
tion (LFA) and the dean of libraries. The
LFA was the formal representative body of
the library faculty and included all librar-
ians below the dean and associate dean.
In 2001, a university-level ad hoc
committee recommended strengthen-
ing existing standards and establishing
more consistent procedures throughout
the campus. A directive from the provost
was sent to all academic units, includ-
ing the library, charging them to review
their standards and “explicitly delineate
appropriate measures or indicators of suc-
cessful outcomes with respect to research,
teaching, and outreach and to ensure fair
and equitable treatment of all faculty.”23
In February 2002, this charge was referred
to the library’s Faculty Affairs Commi ee
(FAC), an elected, standing commi ee
of the LFA. The FAC completed the fol-
lowing:
• Conducted an internal needs as-
sessment;
• Compared local practices with
other institutions in the state of Virginia
and selected research universities;
• Provided progress reports to all
librarians at monthly LFA meetings;
• Posted the initial dra on the LFA
Web site;
• Held public forums;
• Revised the dra document based
on input from the library faculty;
• Held two “readings” culminating
in a final unanimous vote of approval.
The final document:
• Emphasized professional growth
and the common good as goals of promo-
tion and continued appointment;
• More clearly defined faculty ranks
and professional;
• Made requirements for promotion
to professor more rigorous;
• More clearly defined indicators of
professional and scholarly achievement
needed for promotion and continued
appointment;
• Defined and emphasized research,
professional experience, and scholarship
and learning.
The University of North Carolina at
Charlotte
Librarians at UNC Charlo e have had
faculty status and eligibility for tenure
since 1965. During the 2001–2002 aca-
demic year, the interim university librar-
ian informed the library faculty that the
tenure document need to be revised and
requirements for reappointment, promo-
tion, and tenure strengthened. The Library
Review Commi ee of the Library Faculty
began revising the tenure document a er
the arrival of the new university librarian
in 2002.24 In February 2003, the univer-
sity librarian called a special meeting of
the twenty-nine-member library faculty
to inform them that the reappointment
and tenure applications of three library
faculty members were being tabled. The
168 College & Research Libraries March 2006
interim provost was instituting a new
status for library faculty under Special
Faculty Appointments, as provided for
in the university’s tenure policy. [Faculty
members hired under the special faculty
appointments are hired under specified
terms of service and are not eligible for
permanent tenure.25] This new career
track would consist of non-tenure-track,
multiyear appointments.26 The rationale
given for this change was the university’s
determination that librarians would not be
able to meet the more exacting standards
regarding reappointment, tenure, and
promotion. The library administration did
not state any opposition to this change.
There had been no consultation with
the library faculty prior to this meeting.
The Interim Provost and the university’s
General Counsel a ended a meeting of the
library faculty to discuss the university’s
decision, and a dra document entitled
“Procedures for Initial Appointment,
Reappointment, and Promotion for UNC
Charlo e Librarians,” was wri en. The
dra document outlined proposed proce-
dures and categorized librarians by library
rank (e.g., general librarian) rather than
by university rank (e.g., associate profes-
sor).27 Librarians would continue to have
faculty status and participate in university
governance. Librarians currently on tenure
track or holding tenure would have the op-
tions of staying on tenure track, retaining
tenure and going through the post-tenure
review process, or resigning from their
tenure-track or tenured positions and sign-
ing multiyear contracts as covered library
faculty. A number of issues and concerns
were raised at this meeting, including:
• Perceived lack of collegiality on the
part of the university administration;
• The library faculty’s role in contrib-
uting to the procedures document;
• Requirements and standards of
teaching and scholarship, including the
definition of teaching;
• Academic freedom;
• Promotion;
• Participation in university gover-
nance.28
The library faculty was split over the
issue of a new career path. In university
governance, the library had been consid-
ered a separate college and the university
librarian had status equivalent to a dean.
It was the first time that the university’s
Special Faculty Appointments designa-
tion had been implemented for an entire
college. Some librarians accepted the
new career track; others, both tenured
and those on the tenure track, felt be-
trayed. In addition, there was pressure to
approve the new procedures document
so that candidates for library faculty
positions would have access to the new
procedures during their interviews. Sev-
eral special meetings, including another
meeting with the interim provost, were
held to revise the new procedures docu-
ment, revise the previous tenure docu-
ment, and to implement such changes
as parallel library faculty commi ees
for covered and tenure-track faculty ap-
pointment, reappointment, and promo-
tion. The new procedures document for
covered library faculty was approved in
March 2004.29
As early as April 2003, a librarian on
the University Faculty Executive Com-
mi ee brought the new career track to the
university faculty’s a ention.30 During the
2003-2004 academic year this issue was
discussed at several meetings.31 Even-
tually the Faculty Employment Status
Committee (FESC) was charged with
investigating this situation and report-
ing to the Faculty Executive Commi ee.
The FESC met with the associate provost,
the university general counsel, and the
university librarian.32 The FESC made
the following recommendations to the
Faculty Executive Commi ee:
• Give the library faculty a deadline
for making a decision about switching to
the Special Faculty Appointments track
only a er the new operational procedures
are in place;
• The library faculty should be given
the opportunity to be actively involved
in developing the new operational pro-
cedures.33
http:cedures.33
http:librarian.32
http:meetings.31
http:a�ention.30
http:nance.28
http:appointments.26
http:tenure.25
Academic Librarians and Tenure 169
The Faculty Executive Commi ee ac-
cepted the recommendations of the FESC.
In addition, the commi ee charged the
FESC to “obtain and analyze information
regarding the issue of tenure-track, non-
tenure-track, and part-time faculty.”34
For the library faculty, the implemen-
tation of the new career path has meant
having two career tracts, tenure track and
covered library faculty (non–tenure track).
As a result, one librarian on tenure track
was awarded tenure, two le university
employment, and the remainder chose the
new career path. For those librarians who
already had tenure, all but one chose to
retain tenured status. All new hires since
implementation of the new career path
have been covered library faculty.
Summary
Why were the outcomes so different
among these three institutions? At the
University of Oklahoma, the librarians
were successful because they had strong
support from the Faculty Senate, which
viewed the issue as one of administration
usurping faculty rights. In response to a
forceful and united stand by the Faculty
Senate, the administration developed
creative and flexible alternatives. At
Virginia Polytechnic, the university’s
charge was referred to the library’s
Faculty Affairs Commi ee, an elected,
standing commi ee of the LFA, the for-
mal representative body of the library
faculty. The library faculty had input
throughout the process including a final
vote. At the University of North Carolina
at Charlo e, there was no prior consulta-
tion or discussion with the library faculty
nor was there any formal statement of
support for retaining eligibility for ten-
ure by the library administration or the
teaching faculty.
Do Tenure and Faculty Status Matter?
Results of a Selective Survey
In light of the experiences on these
campuses, the question may be raised
whether faculty status and tenure for
academic librarians have a meaningful
impact on working conditions, profes-
sional careers, and the library as an
institution. Do they confer “a benefit
beyond the individual”?35 Do they aid
in the a raction and retention of librar-
ians? Do they make a be er library? Do
they make a be er institution? Does this
type of collegiality increase the librarian’s
(and thus the library’s) impact on the
institution? Does it advance the goals of
the library? Does it make university com-
mi ee membership more meaningful by
making librarians’ opinions and concerns
more valid?36 A number of surveys speak
to this question and have addressed the
following topics:
• Satisfaction with faculty status,
based on type of institution, academic
rank, promotion history, primary area of
responsibility, years of experience, tenure
status, and gender;
• Differences with regard to library
governance structure;
• Differences in eligibility for mem-
bership in the faculty governing body;
• Effects on salary scales;
• Differences in promotion policies;
• Differences in obtaining leaves of
absence or sabbaticals;
• Differences in funding opportuni-
ties for research projects;
• Differences in academic freedom;
• Examined library faculty participa-
tion in governance.37
As a result of the developments re-
garding tenure for library faculty at UNC
Charlo e, two members of the library
faculty did a literature review to try to de-
termine if faculty status and tenure made
a difference in librarians’ professional
lives. In the course of their literature re-
view, they found a comprehensive article
on faculty status by Rachel Applegate
that suggested that: “Researchers could
look further than the question of whether
faculty status increases collegiality to
whether it increases librarians’ impact
on institutional governance.”38 This state-
ment reflects this standard of the ACRL
Standards for Faculty Status for College
and University Librarians:
http:governance.37
170 College & Research Libraries March 2006
3. College and university gover-
nance—Librarians should be eli-
gible for membership in the faculty
senate or equivalent government
body. They should have the same
degree of representation as other
academic units on all college or
university governing bodies.39
The investigating librarians also were
interested in the impact of faculty status
and tenure on librarians’ participation in
opportunities for professional develop-
ment. These issues are included in the fol-
lowing ACRL Standards for Faculty Status
for College and University Librarians:
6. Promotion—Librarians should
be promoted in rank based on their
academic proficiency and profes-
sional effectiveness.
7. Leaves—Sabbatical and other
research leaves should be avail-
able to librarians consistent with
standards.40
The research hypothesis for the study
was to ascertain whether there was any
statistically significant evidence of a
relationship between faculty status and
eligibility for tenure and academic librar-
ians being eligible for the following:
• Promotion
• University or professional ranks
• Release time for sabbaticals or re-
search
• Travel funds
• Service on campuswide commit-
tees
• Voting privileges within campus-
wide commi ees
• Service on the campus faculty
senate or other campuswide governing
body
• Voting privileges within the Faculty
Senate
An additional research hypothesis was
to test whether there was any statistically
significant evidence of a relationship be-
tween faculty status and eligibility for
tenure for academic librarians and the
presence of a faculty library advisory
commi ee.
In spring 2003, the investigating librar-
ians sent surveys to the heads of public
services or reference services at a hundred
libraries classified as Doctoral/Research
Universities-Intensive by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching in the year 2000.41 Both private
and public institutions were included.
The questionnaire is shown in appendix
A. Respondents were offered copies of
the preliminary results upon request.
Fi y-five out of 100 questionnaires were
returned; all returned questionnaires
were deemed usable. Questionnaires
were returned by librarians at 32 public
universities and 23 private universities.
The response rate was 55 percent; such a
response rate is considered to be average
for an academic study.42 Additional com-
ments were generally of an explanatory
nature. Twelve respondents requested
copies of the preliminary results.
Preliminary analysis of the responses
indicated the following results:
• Over 70 percent of responding
librarians reported having faculty status
on their campus.
• Less than 50 percent were eligible
for tenure.
• Very few libraries had two-track
systems for librarians (i.e., both tenure-
track and non-tenure-track faculty).
• Less than 50 percent reported li-
brarians holding university ranks (e.g.,
professor).
• Over 60 percent reported eligibility
for release time for research.
• Over 95 percent reported eligibility
for travel funds.
• Over 85 percent reported eligibility
to serve on campuswide commi ees with
voting privileges.
• Over 75 percent reported eligibility
to serve on the campuswide governing
body (i.e., Faculty Senate), although fewer
had voting privileges.
• Eighty percent reported having a
library faculty advisory commi ee.
http:study.42
http:standards.40
http:bodies.39
Academic Librarians and Tenure 171
Table 1 summarizes all responses, in-
cluding the number of responses and the
percentages responding yes or no to the
survey questions.
When the responses were divided on
the basis of professional status, the per-
centages changed in some instances. Table
2 represents the percentage of affirmative
responses from libraries, differentiated
by professional status (nonfaculty status,
faculty status, tenure track), with the ex-
ception of responses from libraries having
a two-track system.
A cursory examination of table 2 dem-
onstrates that faculty status and eligibility
for tenure increased the probability of aca-
demic librarians’ participation in faculty
governance and some opportunities for
professional growth. Eligibility for tenure
meant affirmative answers in all catego-
ries related to professional growth and
participation in institutional governance.
The responses to the questions concerning
university rank or professional rank seem
contradictory. Although all responses
from libraries with tenure track reported
that librarians had university rank (e.g.,
professor), 55.6 percent also responded
that librarians had professional rank (e.g.,
assistant librarian). This seeming contra-
diction may be due to libraries having a
dual system of titles for university and
professional ranking (e.g., professor and
associate librarian).
Although these tables may provide
useful data for comparison, the investigat-
ing librarians wanted to determine if there
was statistically significant evidence of
relationships among professional status
and eligibility for tenure, participation
in campus governance, and opportuni-
ties for professional growth. The SPSS
CROSSTAB program (version 12.0) was
employed. Results were deemed to be
statistically significant evidence of a re-
lationship if the Pearson’s correlation (r)
had an approximate significance of p<.05
for the two variables of faculty status and
TABLE 1
All Responses
Question (number of responses)
Percentage
Yes
Percentage
No
Library has both tenure and non-tenure tracks (n = 55) 13 87
Librarians have faculty status (n = 54) 72.2 27.7
Librarians eligible for tenure (n = 55)1, 2 42.6 55.6
Librarians eligible for promotion (n = 54)2 75.5 22.2
Librarians hold university ranks (e.g., professor) (n = 55)2 35.2 63.0
Librarians hold library/professional ranks (e.g., associate
librarian (n = 38)
47.5 50.0
Librarians eligible for sabbaticals/release time (n = 53) 60.4 39.6
Librarians eligible for travel funds (n = 53) 96.2 3.7
Librarians eligible to serve on campuswide committees (n = 53) 86.5 13.5
Librarians have voting privileges (n = 46)3 95.7 4.3
Librarians eligible to serve in faculty senate (n = 53) 78.8 21.2
Librarians have voting privileges (n = 40)3 100 0
Library has a faculty advisory committee (n = 51) 80.0 20.0
1Percentages do not include libraries reporting both tenure and non-tenure tracks.
2Percentages do not include responses other than yes/no.
3Based on those responding to previous question.
172 College & Research Libraries March 2006
TABLE 2
Responses by Professional Status
Question Percentage
without
Faculty Status
Percentage
with Faculty
Status
Percentage
with
Eligibility
for Tenure
Librarians have faculty status. — 72.22 100
Librarians are eligible for tenure.1 0 59.0 —
Librarians are eligible for promotion.1 53.3 84.2 100
Librarians hold university ranks.1 0 48.7 73.9
Librarians hold library/professional
ranks.1
40.0 52.2 55.6
Librarians are eligible for sabbaticals or
release time for research.
13.3 78.9 100
Librarians are eligible for travel funds. 92.2 97.4 100
Librarians are eligible to serve on cam-
pus committees.
61.5 94.5 100
Librarians have voting privileges.2 87.5 97.4 100
Librarians eligible to serve in faculty
senate.
35.7 94.7 100
Librarians have voting privileges.2 100 100 100
Library has a faculty advisory committee. 71.4 82.9 85.0
1Percentages do not include libraries reporting both tenure and non-tenure tracks.
2Percentages of those who responded yes to the previous question.
eligibility for tenure. Table 3 shows the
Pearson’s correlation value (r) and the ap-
proximate significance (p) of faculty status
and eligibility for tenure for each question
with the exception of responses from li-
braries having a two-track system.
Table 3 shows statistically significant
evidence of a relationship between faculty
status and the following:
• Eligibility for tenure;
• Holding university rank;
• Eligibility for sabbaticals or release
time for research;
• Eligibility to serve and vote on
campuswide commi ees;
• Eligibility to serve and vote in the
faculty senate.
Table 3 also shows statistically signifi-
cant evidence of a relationship between
eligibility for tenure and eligibility for
promotion and between faculty status
and eligibility for tenure.
Conclusion
As academic librarians enter this period
where roles are redefined and status is
challenged for all faculty, they will need
to work with library and university
administrations to develop new accom-
modations. The definition of teaching
will have to be examined along with
the criteria to be used for teaching,
research/scholarship, publication, and
job performance.43 For those outside the
library, what may be needed is an “un-
derstanding of librarianship, coupled
with a significant appreciation of analogs
and dissimilarities between teaching and
librarianship.”44 Also, so as not to have to
“disguise” what librarians do, “it is neces-
sary for librarians to understand enough
of the functions and circumstances of
non-librarian faculty so that librarian-
ship and accomplishments of individual
librarians can be described in terms that
http:performance.43
Academic Librarians and Tenure 173
teaching faculty will understand, that
draw appropriate parallels, and that treat
differences clearly but without apology.”45
According to Richard Sla ery, “At issue
is whether academic librarians ‘qualify’
as college and university faculty, and to
what extent performance criteria should
take into account differences in ‘duties
and schedules’ between librarians and
teaching faculty.”46
Also according to Sla ery, “To oppo-
nents the pursuit by academic librarians
of a status identical to that of teaching
faculty is unrewarding, unwise, and poten-
tially destructive. Acceptance of the faculty
model means an additional, ‘unnecessary
burden which results in an artificial force-
fi ing of activities into an inappropriate
mold.’”47 Also according to Sla ery, “To its
proponents, faculty status is an appropriate
complement to our sense of professional
identity. It is the passport to greater campus
involvement and to enhanced self-esteem
and prestige, and is the instrument that
allows us to more accurately gauge the
quality and variety of services required of
us.”48 When university and library admin-
istrators move away from this system, these
issues and concerns may arise:
• There may be less of a university
commitment to the individual;
• Academic librarians may be in a
less favorable position in regard to pay,
leave, and professional development;
• Academic librarians may be more
easily replaced by cheaper labor;
• There may be less publishing and
scholarship to the detriment of the profes-
sion;
• There may be an impact on job
satisfaction and turnover rates;
• Academic freedom and dissent may
be stifled.
Concerns about the aforementioned
issues, in addition to the data obtained
from the selective survey, may indicate
that there are three primary reasons to
continue to address the issues of faculty
TABLE 3
Summary of Pearson’s Correlations (Pearson’s R) Values
Significance of Faculty Status and Eligibility for Tenure
Question
Have Faculty
Status
Eligible for
Tenure
r p r p
Librarians are eligible for tenure. .479 .000* — —
Librarians are eligible for promotion. .264 .056 .550 .000*
Librarians hold university ranks. .406 .002* .737 .000*
Librarians hold library/professional ranks. .070 .677 .249 .132
Librarians are eligible for sabbaticals or
release time for research.
.604 .000* .615 .000*
Librarians are eligible for travel funds. .104 .463 .155 .267
Librarians are eligible to serve on
campus committees.
.423 .002* .330 .016*
Librarians have voting privileges. .183 .222 .188 .210
Librarians are eligible to serve in faculty senate. .641 .000* .424 .002*
Librarians have voting privileges. — — — —
Librarians have faculty status. — — .479 .000*
Library has a faculty advisory committee. .128 .380 .076 .599
*Significant at the p<.05 level.
174 College & Research Libraries
status and tenure for academic librarians:
(1) full participation in university gover-
nance, enhancing the library’s role in the
academe; (2) academic freedom; and (3)
March 2006
full opportunity for professional growth.
Taking into consideration the results of
the selective study indicated that only
tenure ensures all three.
APPENDIX A
Librarians & Institutional Impact Questionnaire
1. 1 Are librarians split between two different systems, e.g., tenure track and yearly contracts?
Yes No
If you answered yes, please use the back of the questionnaire to explain the structure. Please
answer as many of the following questions as possible.
2. Are librarians at your library eligible for tenure? Yes No
If you answered no, what type of contracts do librarians have at your library? (Please use
back of questionnaire.)
3. Are librarians at your library eligible for promotion? Yes No
4a. Do librarians at your library have university ranks of assistant professor, associate profes-
sor, full professor? Yes No
If yes, please go to question #5, if no, please go to question #4b.
4b. If you answered no, do librarians at your library have the library/professional ranks of
assistant librarian, associate librarian, full librarian or similar titles? Yes No
5. If you answered yes to question 4b., what titles does your library have? (e.g., Librarian I,
junior librarian)?
6. Are librarians at your library eligible for sabbaticals or release time for research?
Yes No
7. Are librarians at your library eligible for travel funds? Yes No
8. Are librarians at your library eligible to serve on campus-wide faculty commi ees (e.g.,
curriculum commi ees, grants commi ees, employment status commi ees)? Yes No
If you answered yes, do they have voting status? Yes No
9. Are librarians at your library eligible to serve on the campus-wide faculty governing body
(e.g., faculty senate or faculty council)? Yes No
If you answered yes, do they have voting status? Yes No
10. Do librarians at your library have faculty status? Yes No
1
If yes, please define what “faculty status” means at your library.
1
11. Is there a faculty advisory commi ee or group for your library? Yes No
If you have any additional comments on the status of librarians at your library and its impact
on your institution, please use the back of this questionnaire.
Thank you for completing this survey.
Academic Librarians and Tenure 175
Notes
1. Charles E. Sla ery, “Faculty Status: Another 100 Years of Dialogue? Lessons from the
Library School Closings,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 20 (Sept. 1994): 193.
2. Ibid., 196.
3. Rodney M. Hersberger, “The Challenges of Leading and Managing Faculty Status Librar-
ians,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (Jan. 1989): 362.
4. Rachel Applegate, “Deconstructing Faculty Status: Research and Assumptions,” Journal
of Academic Librarianship 19 (July 1993): 161.
5. Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and
Tenure for College and University Librarians (Chicago: ACRL, 1987). Available online at h p://www.
ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/modelstatementcriteria.htm. For a proposed revision of the model
statement, see “A Guideline for the Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure of Academic Librarians:
A Dra ,” College & Research Libraries News 66 (Apr. 2005): 308–15.
6. Janet Krompart, “Researching Faculty Status: A Selective Annotated Bibliography,” College
& Research Libraries 53 (Sept. 1992): 441.
7. Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians (Chicago: ACRL, 1972).
Available online at h p://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/jointstatementfaculty.htm.
8. Guidelines for Academic Status for College and University Librarians (Chicago: ACRL, 2002).
Available online at h p://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/guidelinesacademic.htm.
9. Shannon Cary, “Faculty Rank, Status, and Tenure for Librarians,” College & Research Library
News 62 (May 2001): 510–11.
10. Julie J. McGowan and Elizabeth H. Dow, “Faculty Status and Academic Librarianship:
Transformation to a Clinical Model,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 21 (Sept. 1995): 345.
11. Ibid.
12. Roger G. Baldwin and Jay L. Chronister, Teaching without Tenure: Policies and Practices for a
New Era (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Pr., 2001), 3.
13. Courtney Leatherman, “Growth in Positions off the Tenure Track Is a Trend That’s Here
to Stay, Study Finds,” Chronicle of Higher Education 45 (Apr. 9, 1999): A14.
14. Piper Fogg, “For These Professors, ‘Practice Is Perfect,’” Chronicle of Higher Education 50
(Apr. 16, 2004): A12–A14.
15. Richard W. Meyer, “Surviving the Change: The Economic Paradigm of Higher Education
in Transformation,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 23 (Jul. 1997): 296.
16. Ibid.
17. Fogg, “For These Professors, ‘Practice Is Perfect,’” A14.
18. Susan Martin, “Raising Our Professional Expectations with a Two-Track Approach to
Librarianship,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (Mar. 1993): 24.
19. McGowan and Dow, “Faculty Status and Academic Librarianship,” 346.
20. Pat Weaver-Meyers, “Conflict Resolution: A Case Study about Academic Librarians and
Faculty Status,” College & Research Libraries 63 (Jan. 2002): 25–34.
21. Ibid., 28.
22. Edward F. Lener, Bruce Pencek, and Susan Ariew, “Raising the Bar: An Approach to Re-
viewing and Revising Standards for Professional Achievement for Library Faculty,” College &
Research Libraries 65 (July 2004): 287–97.
23. Ibid., 291.
24. Library faculty minutes, University of North Carolina at Charlo e, Feb. 18, 2003.
25. “Tenure Policies, Regulations, and Procedures of the University of North Carolina at Char-
lo e” (Unpublished document, University of North Carolina at Charlo e, July 1, 2004. Available
online at h p://www.legal.uncc.edu/tenurepol.html.
26. “Procedures for Initial Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion for Covered Library
Faculty at The University of North Carolina at Charlo e” (Unpublished document, University
of North Carolina at Charlo e, 2004).
27. “Procedures for Initial Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion for UNC Charlo e
Librarians” (Unpublished document, University of North Carolina at Charlo e, 2003).
28. Library faculty minutes, University of North Carolina at Charlo e, Apr. 15, 2003.
29. Dawn Hubbs, e-mail message to library faculty, March 5, 2004.
30. Minutes of the Faculty Executive Commi ee meeting, University of North Carolina, Apr. 3, 2003.
31. Minutes of the general faculty meeting, University of North Carolina at Charlo e, Aug. 19, 2003.
32. Minutes of the Faculty Executive Commi ee, University of North Carolina at Charlo e,
Oct. 2–9, 2003.
33. “Majority Recommendations on the Special Faculty Appointments in the Library” (Un-
published document, University of North Carolina at Charlo e Faculty Employment Status
Commi ee, Mar. 3, 2004).
176 College & Research Libraries March 2006
34. Minutes of the Faculty Executive Commi ee, University of North Carolina at Charlo e,
Mar. 4, 2004.
35. Applegate, “Deconstructing Faculty Status,” 161.
36. Ibid.
37. See Marjorie A. Benedict, “Librarians’ Satisfaction with Faculty Status,” College & Research
Libraries 52 (Nov. 1991): 538–48; Cary. “Faculty Rank, Status, and Tenure for Librarians,” 510-511,
520; Page Ackerman, “Governance and Academic Libraries,” Library Research 2 (1980–81): 11–12;
Ronald F. Dow, “Academic Librarians: A Survey of Benefits and Responsibilities,” College & Re-
search Libraries 38 (May 1977): 218–20.
38. Applegate, “Deconstructing Faculty Status,” 162.
39. Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians (Chicago: ACRL, 2001).
Available online at h p://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/standardsfaculty.htm.
40. Ibid.
41. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, “Doctoral/Research Universi-
ties-Intensive,” in Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2000 edition (Menlo
Park, Calif.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2000). Available online at
h p://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/CIHE2000/PartIfiles/DRU-INT.htm.
42. Yahuda Baruch, “Response Rate in Academic Studies: A Comparative Analysis,” Human
Relations 52, no. 4 (1999): 429.
43. McGowan and Dow, “Faculty Status and Academic Librarianship,” 346.
44. Janet Swan Hill, “Wearing Our Own Clothes: Librarians as Faculty,” Journal of Academic
Librarianship 20 (May 1994): 71.
45. Ibid.
46. Sla ery, “Faculty Status,” 193.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.; Elizabeth C. Henry, Dana M. Caudle, and Paula Sullenger, “Tenure and Turnover
in Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 55 (Sept. 1994): 429–35; Patrick I. Nestor and
Paul Leary, “The Relationship between Tenure and Non-Tenure Track Status of Extension Fac-
ulty and Job Satisfaction,” Journal of Extension 38 (Aug. 2000). Available online at h p://www.joe.
org/joe/2000august/rb1.html.