ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 380 / C&RL News most public service departments and periodicals published from 1965 to present. Older, less used, and more scholarly materials are located in the John T. Wahlquist Library. University Librarian Maureen Pastine devised the high use/low use plan for dividing the collections. The plan was ap­ proved by the SJSU Academic Senate before it was implemented. ■ ■ Research Release Time at the University of New Mexico Library D ian e Stine University o f New Mexico L ibrary In April 1979 the Ad Hoc Committee to Prepare a Final Report on Faculty Requirements (ap­ pointed by the dean of the library) at the University of New Mexico Library issued a document stating that UNM library faculty members have a strong commitment to scholarship and are most valued when they combine outstanding job performance with distinguished contributions in the areas of scholarship and service. This document was ac­ cepted by the dean and the library faculty. In September 1979 another library committee, the Research and Publications Committee, raised the issue of granting release time for research, crea­ tive works, and publication. This committee is composed of five to seven librarians appointed by the dean and representatives of the library faculty from individuals who have expressed an interest in serving on it. Members are chosen from all areas of the library and all administrative levels. By interviewing faculty members the committee soon learned how faculty handled their research re­ sponsibilities. Some people ignored the issue and resigned themselves to a tenure denial in the fu­ ture. Others worked on their research nights and weekends. Some asked the dean for administrative leave for projects, while others took time off with­ out asking anyone’s permission. The committee found that the faculty preferred a formal, adminis­ tratively sanctioned avenue for research release time. Two possible options were available: 1) Individ­ uals could fill out a leave form similar to one sub­ mitted when taking professional leave for a confer­ ence; the form could be signed by an immediate supervisor and the assistant dean of the division. Or 2), the committee could monitor a program for re­ lease time based on written guidelines accepted by the dean and university faculty. The committee-monitored program had the ad­ vantage of creating support and encouragement to the faculty through contact made between com­ mittee members and individuals engaged in re­ search. It also eliminated the objection that people might not use their time productively. Although this approach eliminated the supervisor’s input, the committee reasoned that since anyone who could not meet a publication requirement might face unemployment, then a supervisor’s inconven­ ience during an employee’s absence for release time was less of a problem than that person’s permanent loss. A leave form provided the easiest way to grant release time. It called less attention to the issue than the committee-monitored approach. The supervi­ sor and assistant dean who sign the form could serve as a source of support and encouragement to the faculty member doing research. On the other hand, they also have the right to refuse leave in cases where they believe time might be wasted or could not be spared. Committee members and the library adminis­ tration favored the committee-monitored alterna­ tive. The committee then drafted a plan for a pilot project and sent written guidelines to all faculty. It then accepted applications from individuals desir­ ing professional leave for creative work, research and/or publication. It was felt that only non­ tenured faculty should be eligible because their professional obligations were more pressing and they lacked the benefit of sabbatical leave. T he length of the p ro ject covered tw elve months. Applications were limited to proposals which could be completed within six months and another six months were allowed for the submis­ sion/review process. All applications contained an outline of the work including the final objective de­ sired (publication, prize, etc.), request for a spe­ cific range of release time, and evidence of commit­ ment to the work from the faculty member or an outside agency. Evidence consisted of a literature search, a preliminary draft, preparation of a data collection instrument, collected data, a grant, a letter of interest from a publisher or other source, and a statement of intent to complete the work. All applications were reviewed using the follow­ ing criteria: the potential value of the work to the individual and to the target audience; its likelihood of success as measured by a positive review from Too busy to keep up with the chemical journal literature? Add CAC&IC to your week ® … Current Abstracts o f Chemistry and Index Chemicus® belongs in even the busiest schedule. CAC&IC can take care of your current awareness needs quickly and easily, giving you more time to put the new information you’ve found to work in your re ­ search. In each weekly issue, CAC&IC in­ dexes new organic chemistry report­ ed in the current journal literature— presented in graphic abstracts like the one below. In just a few minutes, you scan the structural diagrams to locate compounds important to your re ­ search. Each abstract provides a complete bibliographic citation for each journal article, and also alerts you to: • reported biological activities • analytical techniques used • new compounds reported Find out how CAC&IC can bring you the latest developments in organic chemistry every w e e k … call us, toll Institute for free, at 800-523-1850 and ask for the Marketing Department of the Chemi­Scientific Information® Chemical In f o r m a t io n Division cal Information Division, or write us M a rk e tin g D e p a rtm e n t at the address shown. CAC&IC … 3501 M a rk e t Street it belongs in your busy schedule. Philadelphia, PA 19104 • CAC&IC is also available in micro­ 1 2 - 2 9 4 5 © 1982 ISI form, in a cumulation spanning 22 years of chemistry (1960 to 1981). outside the library, its acceptance for publication, or a commendation; the likelihood of completion within six months, including any personal time re­ quired; and its appropriateness for the pilot pro­ ject. Next, the committee prepared a memo to the dean in which each proposal was evaluated accord­ ing to these criteria. The committee recommended an amount of time for each proposal which could be taken in a block or could vary from two to eight hours per week for one to six months, not to exceed a total of one month (170 hours). Co-authored works were allotted a number of hours within this limit to be divided among those participating. The dean reviewed the recommendations and ap­ proved the use of professional leave for no more than six proposals. Each participant submitted a brief, oral report monthly on their progress and problems, and at the end of the leave period submitted a copy of their work to the committee. Upon final disposition of the work or one year after leave had been granted (whichever occurred first), each applicant re­ ported on their success. Five faculty members sent in applications for re­ lease time during the pilot project. Three people were working on a joint project, so there were a to­ tal of three proposals which the committee finally recommended. One applicant already had a com­ mitment to write a chapter for a book. The other two projects involved writing articles to be submit­ ted to journals. The 1979 pilot project was successful in that all of the research projects were eventually published. However, all the applicants found it difficult to take off all the time granted because of their other workloads, and all had to do some research and writing on their own time. The policy was then permanently adopted by the University of New Mexico Library. Under the present guidelines the committee can approve up to six proposals concurrently. Since there have never been more than six simultaneous requests, the guideline specifying preference to untenured fac­ ulty has never been put into practice. Works considered for release time are either short works which the applicant completes within a six-month period or sections of larger works when the applicant has demonstrated evidence of pre­ vious publishing activity. A second or subsequent leave request will only be considered if the appli­ cant used the prior leave constructively. This policy has been in effect for three years. Each year new committee members are appointed with some overlap from the previous year. The committee has only rejected one proposal. The individual had requested release time to pre­ pare for a summer course to be taught at another institution. The committee felt that such an activ­ ity did not fall within the guidelines and recom­ mended formal permission from the dean. In sev­ eral cases the committee has recommended less release time than was requested. In each case this was based on the committee’s belief that the project could be completed in less time than the applicant requested. Research activity, especially among the newer faculty at UNM, has increased since the implemen­ tation of this policy. People under evaluation for midway and tenure reviews are examined for their use of this option. Faculty can no longer claim that they were not given time to pursue research. By officially designating a portion of the 40-hour week for research, librarians’ workloads are made comparable to those of the teaching faculty. ■ ■ Credit for CE Courses Fifty ACRL members and 50 past partici­ pants to ACRL continuing education courses were recently surveyed to determine their reac­ tion to the idea of offering Continuing Educa­ tion Units (CEU’s) for participation in ACRL continuing education courses. Although other library associations such as SLA and MLA pro­ vide CEU’s, ACRL currently does not offer the CEU as part of its continuing education pro­ gram. A cover letter to the survey, which was sent out in October, explained that one CEU is “ten contact hours of participation in an organized continuing education experience under respon­ sible sponsorship, capable direction and quali­ fied instruction.” (Criteria and Guidelines fo r the Use o f the CEU, The Council on the CEU, Silver Springs, Md.) The CEU is designed to provide a standard of measurement and a sys­ tem of recordkeeping for noncredit continuing education and provision of the CEU would in no way change the nature or costs of the ACRL continuing education program. The survey asked the following three ques­ tions: 1) Would you be more likely to obtain permission to attend a continuing education course if CEU’s were offered for that course? 2) Do you foresee advantages for yourself if CEU’s are offered? And 3) would you prefer that the ACRL continuing education program offer CEU’s? Responses to the idea of providing CEU’s to ACRL continuing education participants are welcomed. If you have a concern or would like to respond to the survey questions, please send your responses to: B arbara M acikas, ACRL/ALA, 50 E. Huron, Chicago, Illinois 60611; (312) 944-6780. 382 / C&RL News