ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries November 1989 / 927 Faculty status in South Carolina B y S h e r m a n E . P y a tt Serials/Government Documents Librarian The Citadel J o s e p h in e B . W illia m so n Senior Assistant Librarian University o f Delaware an d E d g a r W illia m so n Assistant Librarian University o f Delaware A survey o f academic librarians measures their attitudes toward faculty status. T here has been an ongoing debate in li- brarianship as to whether or not librarians should have faculty status and/or tenure, concomitant responsibilities to conduct research and publish. A variety of studies have been con ducted related to this topic.1 Nowhere has the debate been hotter than in South Carolina. In the past five years, faculty status has been lost or com promised at several institutions. (One respondent stated that “our institution did away with tenure for librarians . . . without consulting the librarians.”) Many other institutions are threatening to follow suit. However, little has been done to solicit the attitudes of South Carolina’s academic librarians about these issues. Specifically, what are their feel ings about tenure and publishing? How do they think they are perceived by their colleagues in academe, the teaching faculty? The primary purpose of this survey was to gamer information on the attitudes of our colleagues 'For an excellent survey and summary of the literature see Kee DeBoer and Wendy Culotta, “The Academic Librarian and Faculty Status in the 1980s: A Survey of the Literature,” College ir Research Libraries 48 (May 1987): 215-23. wit about their status on their respective campuses. Also, we wanted to allow them a chance to express theh thir e feelings about their relationship with the teaching faculty and administrators with whom they work. Finally, a profile of the “typical” aca demic librarian in the state was to be constructed. M ethod ology Questionnaires were mailed to 229 librarians at accredited institutions of higher education in South Carolina. We chose to survey all academic librari ans in the state because the small size of the group made sampling unnecessary. The names of librari ans at smaller institutions were obtained from the American Library Directory, 40th edition. The four largest institutions were contacted by phone for the names and mailing addresses of all of the librarians on their staffs. All were very cooperative and provided the information promptly. Usable responses were received from 155 librarians, yield ing a response rate of 67.7%. The respondents included librarians from all four-year colleges, universities, and graduate/professional schools in the state of South Carolina. Two-year colleges and technical schools were not polled because librari ans at these institutions do not have and are not 930 / C&RL News TABLEI PU B LISH IN G RECORD Work published Respondents (N=155) Number Percent Book 9 5.8% Article in national journal 27 17.4% Article in regional journal 12 7.7% Article in state journal 16 10.3% O ther 25 16.1% None 66 42.6% eligible for faculty rank or status. The questionnaire was designed to m easure the attitudes o f librarians, regardless of rank, toward th eir status at their respective institutions. Profes sional and personal characteristics w ere also solic ited. O th er surveys o f this type have queried only head librarians/directors2 or university administra tors3. We chose, instead, to survey all academic 2See Greg W. Byerly, “The Faculty Status of Academic Librarians in Ohio,” College 6- Research Libraries 41 (Septem ber 1980): 422-29; Marjorie A. Benedict, Jacquelyn A. Gavryck, and H anan C. Selvin, “Status o f Academic Librarians in New York State,” College 6- Research Libraries 44 (January 1983): 12-19; Becky Bolte Gray and Rosalee McReynolds, “A Comparison o f Academic Librari ans with and without Faculty Status in the Southeast,” College ö- Research Libraries 44 (July 1983): 283-87. 3See Thomas G. English, “Librarian Status in the Eighty-Nine U.S. Academic Institutions o f the Association o f Research Libraries: 1982,” College ò- Research Libraries 44 (May 1983): 199-211. librarians in the state because we agree that “their views are frequently at variance with those of their directors.”4 W e also felt that this would give us a more accurate reflection of the “typical” academic librarian’s perceptions and feelings. That this is a “hot” topic in South Carolina we have no doubt. The strength o f feeling surrounding this subject is partly evidenced by the fact th at 50% o f the questionnaires were com pleted and re tu rn ed within ten days. (It should be stressed that questionnaires w ere sent out in August, a time of vacation for many librarians!) Also, th e attitudinal portion o f the survey contained a very low rate of “don’t know” responses. F o r all ten statements the highest percentage o f such responses was only 16.7%. 4Russ Davidson, Connie Capers Thorson, and Diane Stine, “Facuity Status for Librarians: Query ing the Troops,” College & Research Libraries 44 (November 1983): 414-20. TABLE2 PU B L ISH IN G REC O R D BY G E N D E R Work published Male (%) Female (%) Book 6 9.7% 3 3.2% Article in national journal 17 27.4% 10 10.8% Article in regional journal 3 4.8% 9 9.7% Article in state journal 9 14.5% 7 7.5% Other 8 12.9% 17 18.3% None 19 30.6% 47 50.5% 62 99.9% 73 100.0% November 1989 / 93J P ro file A review o f th e responses p resen ts th e following profile o f th e “typical” South C arolina academ ic librarian. This librarian would: • b e a fem ale (60.0%) w ho has b e e n a librarian betw een 11 an d 20 years (46.1%); • have faculty statu s (92.8%) an d rank (40.7%), b e eligible for te n u re (83.0%), b u t not have te n u re (54.6%); • have p u b lish ed som ething (57.4%), m ost likely an article in a national jo u rn al (17.4%); • w ork in a university library (51.0%) co n tain ing b etw een 100,001 and 500,000 volumes (60.4%) w ith a staff o f 5 to 10 professionals (42.6%); • have an official w ork w eek o f betw een 35 and 39 h ours (83.7%), a tw elve-m onth co n tract (96.7%), an d few er th a n 20 days vacation p e r year (46.1%); • n o t have a w ritten p erso n n e l policy specifi cally for librarians (72.4%), b u t have an in stitu tional grievance b o ard (78.7%); and • receive a salary less th a n th e teaching faculty (64.7%). I t is in terestin g to n o te that, o f those eligible for te n u re , only 34.6% said th a t th ey are re q u ire d to publish o r do research to achieve ten u re. This could b e d u e in p a rt to th e p resen ce o f te n u re d librarians w ho achieved te n u re befo re publishing an d /o r research w ere req u ired . F o r example, o f those te n u re d , 24.3% stated th a t they have p u b lished nothing. I t is also clear th a t publishing and/ o r research are n o t officially en co u rag ed at m ost institutions, since only 20.5% said they receive release tim e to do so. O n th e o th e r h and, a few resp o n d en ts said th a t no one h ad ever actually asked for it. In addition, th e p ercen tag e fo rced to use annual leave for research trips is equal to those w ho are n o t (41.0%). W h en asked, “D o librarians at your institution receive salaries com parable to those o f th e teaching faculty?” th e m ajority (73.8%) answ ered no. O ne co m m en t reflects th e thoughts o f many: “librarians receive eq u a l’ salaries to o th e r faculty o f equal rank except librarians m ust work nights, w eekends, holidays an d 12 m onths for w hat faculty receive in 9 m onths w ith no nights o r w eekends, an d all n o rm al class holidays (i.e., se m ester an d m id-term breaks, an d o th e r holidays).” A n o th er librarian co m m en ted th a t “librarians receive com parable annual salary as teaching faculty, b u t m ust w ork 12 m onths for it instead o f 9 m o n th s.’’This resp o n d e n t also m en tio n ed th a t librarians usually w ork d u ring periods w h en th e school is otherw ise closed, such as C hristm as an d Spring breaks, snow days, etc. Publishing As d escrib ed above, m ost o f th e librarians su r veyed have p u b lish ed som ething (57.4%). H ow ever, if th e item p u b lish ed is lim ited to books and articles, th e n u m b e r w ho have p u b lish ed drops to 41.2% (see T able 1). M any w ho m arked “o th e r” afte r this qu estio n in d icated th a t they reg ard in house bibliographies, pathfinders, indexes to books, college journals, etc., as p u b lish ed works. I t may b e arg u ed th a t th e se should n o t be co u n ted as such. T h erefo re, it may b e m ore accurate to say th a t th e typical academ ic librarian in S outh C aro lina has n o t p u b lish ed anything in th e usual aca dem ic sense o f th e word. As m ight be expected, m ost te n u re d librarians have p u b lish ed som ething (75.7%), w hile m ost u n te n u re d librarians have n o t (57.1%). In addition, all n in e o f th e librarians w ho have p u b lish ed a book are te n u re d . I f “o th e r” publications are excluded, th e balance is even m ore heavily in favor o f te n u re d librarians, w ith 61.4% o f th e m having p u b lish ed a book o r article co m p ared to 25.0% for u n te n u re d librarians. O f those u n te n u re d librarians eligible for te n u re , 41.7% have p u b lish ed som ething. It seem s clear th a t th ey are resp o n d in g to th e p re s su re to publish. T h e survey shows th a t academ ic librarians in South C arolina m irro r th e nationw ide tre n d o f m en publishing at g rea ter rates th an w om en.5 Less than h alf o f th e fem ale resp o n d en ts have pub lish ed som ething, w hereas nearly 70% o f th e males have do n e so (see T able 2). To te st th e significance o f sex an d publishing, a 2 x 2 chi-square test was con stru cted . I t was found th a t th e calculated chi- square value (6.02) is significant at th e .05 level (X = 3.84 w ith df= 1). This supports th e hypothesis th at sex influences th e likelihood o f publishing. Attitudes In P art III o f th e survey, respondents w ere asked to indicate th e ir attitu d es tow ard te n statem en ts by m arking w h e th e r th ey “strongly disagree .d isag ree, d o n ’t know, agree, o r strongly agree.” T h e first sta te m en t was, “T each in g faculty at m y institution tre a t librarians as colleagues w ho have th e same rights, privileges, an d responsibilities as they d o .” N egative attitu d es nearly balance positive ones, w ith 42.2% o f all resp o n d en ts disagreeing an d /o r strongly disagreeing w ith this sta te m en t an d 49.4% agreeing an d /o r strongly agreeing. I t is notew orthy to co m p are th ese answers w ith those given for th e last statem en t: “Overall, librarians a t m y institution enjoy equal status w ith th e teaching faculty.” In this 5See M arth a C. A dam son an d G loria J. Zamora, “Publishing in L ibrary Science Journals: A T est o f th e O lsgaard Profile,” C ö R L 42 (May 1981): 235- 41; Jo h n N. O lsgaard an d Jane K inch Olsgaard, “A u th o rsh ip C h a ra cteristics in F ive L ib rary Periodicals,” C & R L 41 (January 1980): 49-53. 932 / C&RL News case, negative feelings outweigh the positive ones, w ith 50.3% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing w ith the statem ent and 43.8% agreeing o r strongly agreeing. T he differences may be accounted for by the fact that the second statem ent encompasses the esteem a respondent receives not only from the faculty, bu t also from the administration. T he second statem ent d ealt with annual leave: “Annual leave for librarians at my institution is adequate.” Most (58.8%) agree or strongly agree with this statem ent. Only 38.0% do not. T he results discussed thus far seem to indicate that, on average, academic librarians in South Carolina seem to feel fairly satisfied with their cu rren t work environm ents. This positive set of feelings is reflected in th eir responses to the sixth statem ent: “If I had it to do over again, I would not becom e an academic librarian.” Only 16.0% o f the respondents say they agree and/or strongly agree. Fully 67.3% disagree and/or strongly disagree. In oth er words, nearly two-thirds would do it again. It is interesting to note th at this statem ent elicited the largest percentage (16.7%) o f d on’t know answers o f all ten o f th e attitudinal statements. Several statem ents w ere p resen ted to elicit atti tudes w ith respect to tenure. O ne statem ent said, “Librarians should be eligible for te n u re .” People overwhelmingly agree and/or strongly agree with this by nearly a seven to one margin (119 versus 18, with only 15 marking “don’t know”). However, w hen confronted with the statem ent, “Librarians should be required to publish for tenure and/or prom otion,” 56.0% disagree and/or strongly dis agree. Twelve p ercen t say they don’t know and only 32.0% agree and/or strongly agree. T h ere appears to be even stronger feeling against the idea o f using th e same criteria for tenure as the faculty uses. Sixty-six (66.4) p ercen t disagree and/or strongly disagree w ith the statem ent, “Li brarians should be ju d g ed by the same criteria as teaching faculty for te n u re and/or prom otion.” It seems clear th at academic librarians want to be eligible for tenure, bu t n o t on the same basis as the teaching faculty. O ne respondent p u t it succinctly, stating th at “librarians should not be expected to publish o r perish on a 12-month contract.” A nother com m ented that “librarians should n o t be forced into ‘preten d in g ’ th at they are the same and/or ‘equal’ to teaching faculty, and they should not be forced into trying to mold th eir duties into ‘catego ries’ th a t correlate to teaching faculty duties.” O n th e oth er hand, many respondents argued that librarians should work toward establishing unique criteria which reflect “the vastly different responsibilities” o f librarians as com pared to the teaching faculty. Adding a criterion such as “p ro fessional involvement to [the] research and publi cation category” and allowing activities such as “internal studies and presentations at meetings to substitute for formal publications” w ere offered as solutions to the problem . A nother suggestion is to define publication “loosely for purposes o f tenure, [to] include in-house bibliographies, manuscripts in preparation, etc.” A nother respondent proposed that librarians “be judged by criteria that similarly parallel th eir job duties [such as] ‘com petence as a librarian’ in place o f ‘teaching effectiveness.”’ One librarian expressed some skepticism as to w hether this would work: “W e could develop our own crite ria . . . b u t th at won’t necessarily guarantee accep tance by the rest o f the academic com munity.” T h ree statem ents w ere included as p art o f the survey in o rd er to ascertain w hat librarians might like to alter about their working conditions. The most popular change would be. to allow librarians to have sabbaticals: 90.9% agree and/or strongly agree with this (in fact, this statem ent had the highest percentage (53.2%) o f strongly agree an swers) . A nother popular change would be to get rid o f the forty-hour work week. Only 23.7% agree and/or strongly agree that “Librarians should work a40 -h o u r work w eek.” Finally, most (57.1%) agree and/or strongly agree th at “Librarians should be given the option o f a 9 or 12 m onth contract.” T he strength o f feeling about this issue may be a reflec tion o f th e pressure academic librarians experience w hen they m ust do research and/or publish with no tim e off to do so (see com m ent above). It w ould be interesting to see w h eth er or not. this feeling sub sided if librarians w ere n o t required to do these activities to be tenured/prom oted. C o n c lu s i o n T he most striking finding o f this survey is the degree o f agreem ent among South Carolina’s aca dem ic librarians. This holds true for both ten u red and u n te n u re d librarians alike. They w ant sabbati cals, variable-length contracts, and faculty status. T hey do n o t w ant to be h eld to a 40-hour work week. T hey w ant to be eligible for ten u re, b u t they w ant to be judged by criteria which reflect the duties and responsibilities o f librarians, not those of the teaching faculty. Many respondents provided excellent alternatives for these criteria. It is hoped th at some o f these suggestions will be im ple m ented. M ore research needs to be done regarding institutions which have done so successfully. T h ere is some discord am ong respondents. On th e subject o f faculty status, one person com m en ted th at “if librarians spent less tim e w hining about faculty status and more tim e doing real schol arship, we might get more respect.” O f course, this com m ent begs the question o f how much real adm inistration support exists for doing so. Perhaps with sabbaticals and paid research leave, more “real scholarship” would be produced. Librarians are split rath er evenly over th e question o f being Novem ber 1989 / 933 tre a te d as colleagues by th e faculty. T h e sam e is tr u e w ith resp e ct to th e ir feeling th a t th ey have eq u a l status on cam pus. F u rth e r research n ee d s to b e d o n e w ith resp e ct to attitu d es co n cern in g te n u re , faculty status, an d eq u ality o f tre a tm e n t. F o r exam ple, it w o u ld b e in te restin g to know if th e re are any differences in attitu d e s b etw e en m ale an d fem ale librarians, te n u re d an d u n te n u re d librarians, d irecto rs an d o th e r librarians, to n am e a few. O n e librarian co m m e n ted : “I have som etim es e n te rta in e d th e nasty th o u g h t th a t faculty rank an d status for librarians is a device p ro m o te d by re feren c e a n d p u b lic service librarians w ho seek to b e tak en seriously an d p ro fessionally by an elitist an d co n d escen d in g teaching faculty.” This illustrates alienation, n o t only from th e rest o f th e faculty, b u t also from o th e r lib rari ans. A dditional study should b e m ad e to d e te rm in e if this c o m m en t reflects th e g en eral a ttitu d e o f tech n ical service librarians. I f tru e , it m ay indicate th a t w e librarians n e e d to reconcile o u r own differ en ces b efo re expecting m u ch faculty su p p o rt for g ran tin g us th e privilege o f te n u re an d faculty status. ■ ■ News from the Field Acquisitions • T h e U n iv e r s i t y o f V ir g in ia ’s A lderm an L i brary, C harlottesville, rec en tly acq u ired an original 1805 le tte r w ritte n by T h o m as Jefferso n to his frien d Philip M azzei, an Italian w ine m erch an t, req u e stin g th a t h e sen d tw o b o ttles o f w ine from E u ro p e to th e W h ite H ouse. C u rren tly , A lderm an L ib rary owns approxim ately 2,500 original Je ffer son letters. T h e M azzei le tte r, th e m ost rec en t ed itio n to th e collection, was p u rc h a se d this su m m e r from th e D an ie l F. K elleh er Co. Inc., auction h o u se in Boston. T h e p u rch a se was fu n d e d b y th e M onticello M em orial F o u n d atio n , w hich has fi n a n c e d th e buying o f original Jefferson w ritings for A lderm an L ib rary for th e p ast 22 years. C u rren tly h o u se d in a clim ate-co n tro lled vault on th e seco n d floor o f A lderm an Library, th e le tte r is o n e s h e e t o f p ap e r, h an d w ritten . • V illa n o v a U n iv e r s it y , Villanova, Pennsylva- nia, has receiv ed from th e U niversity o f W ü rz b u rg a m ach in e-read ab le co n co rd an ce to th e critical L atin editions o f th e w orks o f St. A ugustine. T h e co n co rd an ce was d ev elo p ed th ro u g h th e efforts o f P rofessor C ornelius M ayer, O.S.A. Villanova is th e only U.S. site fo r this resource. Grants • T h e B r a n d e is U n iv e r s ity Libraries. Waltham, M assachusetts, in co n ju n ctio n w ith th e L em b erg P ro g ram in In tern atio n al E conom ics an d F in an ce, has receiv ed a $24,000 gift from th e C onsulate G en e ra l o f Japan, Boston. T h e gift will b e u se d to p u rch a se books an d serials on Jap an ese econom ics, as w ell as fine arts, literatu re , an d Jap an ese cu ltu re an d history. Areas o f p articu la r in te re s t to Bran- d eis’s D e p a rtm e n t o f . E conom ics are Japanese la b o r m arkets, U .S.-Japan trad e , an d U .S.-Japan eco n o m ic relations. T h ese m aterials will b e u se d as a fo u n d atio n to p ro m o te b e tte r u n d ersta n d in g o f Jap an ese life a n d stre n g th e n in te re s t on cam pus in Jap an ese studies. • T h e C e n t e r f o r R e s e a r c h L ib r a r ie s , C hi- cago, has receiv ed a bibliographic access g ran t o f $236,331 from th e U.S. D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u catio n u n d e r th e H ig h er E d u ca tio n A ct T itle II-C S tre n g th e n in g L ib rary R esources P rogram . This aw ard will en ab le retro sp ectiv e conversion o f 56,000 R o m an -alp h ab et reco rd s fo r m onographs in th e c e n te r s card catalog. T h e D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u ca tio n ap p ro v ed a th re e -y e a r p ro je c t p erio d for th e retro sp ectiv e conversion p ro jec t and fu n d e d a on e-y ear p e rio d b eg in n in g O c to b e r 1, 1989. T h e fed eral funds are financing all o f th e p ro je c t costs. In th e c u rre n t, final p h ase o f re tro spective conversion, th e c e n te r is tre a tin g 240,000 m o nographic records. T his rep rese n ts approxi m ately 160,00 reco rd s in R om an alp h ab e t for m aterials in original form at, 35,000 records in cyril lic alp h ab et, 40,000 reco rd s for m icroform s, an d 5,000 reco rd s w ith m ain entry, collation, etc., p ro b lem s th a t m u st b e solved by consulting th e m a teri als. T his g ra n t will m ove th e c e n te r significantly forw ard to w ard a co m p letely m ach in e-read ab le catalog an d will im prove re se a rc h e rs’ online access to its in fre q u en tly -h e ld resources. • E m p o r ia S ta t e U n iv e r s it y , Kansas, has re- cieved a $28,145 g ran t from th e N ational E n d o w m e n t fo r th e H u m an ities to su p p o rt lectu res,