ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 9 7 2 / C&RL News The flip side o f faculty status By John Buschm an Information Services Librarian Rider College L ibrary The results o f a regional survey o f non-faculty librarians. T he issue o f faculty status for academic li- brarians has been thoroughly discussed, b u t it is a persistent them e that commands even weary attention. I f for no other reason, faculty status needs to be looked at on a continuing basis so that new m em bers o f th e profession know what the fuss is about. The publication of Krompart and D iFelice’s “A Review o f Faculty Status Surveys, 1971-1984”1 marks a tu rn in th e nature of the discussion. Theirs is an effort to survey the p u b ­ lished surveys in o rder to extract consistent findings and themes. T he late arrival of this journal issue coincided with survey results being compiled by the author during th e spring and sum m er of 1988. There were im portant areas o f overlap between Krompart and D iFelice and that survey. Krompart and DiFelice note that the published surveys “have not been heavily cited nor have they otherwise received focused attention” (p. 14). Secondly, they make it clear that th e surveys as a group will be used to reevaluate faculty status in light of the achievem ent o f th e goals of the ACRL Standards for Faculty Status (p. 14). They summa­ rize this review noting “a working environment depressed in term s of stated goals, with practitio­ ners often confused about what the profession and 1Janet Krompart and Clara D iFelice. “A Review of Faculty Status Surveys, 1971-1984,” Journal o f Academic Librarianship 13 (M arch 1987): 14—18. All page references in text refer to this article. th eir institutions expect o f th e m ... .The survey find­ ings dramatize the need for careful consideration of what is worth preserving from traditional librari­ anship and gaining from faculty status” (pp. 17,16). This article is based on comparison o f results from Krompart and D iFelice’s review of 14 years of data and a regional survey of non-faculty librarians. Any reevaluation of faculty status m ust take into ac­ count the professional climate on th e o ther side of the fence. While the regional survey was small in scale, the results indicate areas of common ground. F urther, the survey reached a specific population that Krompart and D iFelice noted were likely not to have faculty status, and it addressed a specific weakness in the surveys they reviewed. The bal­ ance of the p aper will examine those areas of common ground: institutional variance, self-gov­ ernance, compensation, and librarian comments, followed by a conclusion. I n stitu tio n a l v a r ia n c e “Librarians remain in what one research team over a decade ago term ed ‘academic limbo’” (p. 14). Librarians in older traditional institutions have had a particularly difficult tim e in achieving faculty status2 and “Small private (especially religious) colleges are... more inclined to retain the traditional 2The author would like to acknowledge the re ­ viewer who noted this point. December 1989 / 973 term s o f em ploym ent” (p. 16). P ut another way, Krompart and D iFelice find that large public insti­ tutions are the most likely schools to be in line with the ACRL Standards. This particular group of schools, those not likely to comply with the Stan­ dards, was the target audience of the regional survey. O ne would expect to find in the results more than the usual variation in librarians’ rank or status. This was th e case, with some surprising additions. W hen asked to identify groups of comparable rank or status on their campus, slightly over 40% of the respondents indicated none— a librarian-pro­ vided answer. Academic com puting (39%), aca­ demic counselors (28%), and development/alumni administration (22%) w ere all prom inent answers. This spread of identified equivalent groups shows a very wide variation in perceived rank and status. T h e ‘ ‘none” answer was most surprising since it was not provided, and could indicate a sense o f profes­ sional isolation as a group. Secondly, in reviewing th e w ritten comments solicited on the survey, an unusual situation oc­ curred. D espite the attem pt to eliminate from the group library staffs with faculty status (see A ppen­ dix 1), some did slip in. O f th e 16 staffs surveyed, 9 had non-faculty status, 3 w ere split betw een faculty and non-faculty librarians, and 4 indicated a form of faculty status. T hese seven w ere included in the results for a variety o f reasons. The areas of agree­ m ent betw een all responses w ere very strong. F or instance, 14 librarians identified themselves as faculty in writing, but only 3 o f them (obliquely) cited teaching faculty as th eir peers, and more than half o f them noted equivalent groups o th er than the teaching faculty. O f th e 4 staffs wholly com prised of faculty, 3 of them have the status w ithout rank or ten u re and similar conditions exist on th e split staffs. These situations clearly add to the wide variety o f campus environm ents th at could have been discerned from th e character of the group of institutions. Lastly, these 7 staffs w ere included in th e mailing as a result of those institutions’ lack o f clarity in noting library faculty in th eir catalogs. The responses would indicate a form o f faculty status for those librarians which could be said to be weak. The issue was described as a “hodge-podge” on campus by one librarian, and the w ritten comments illuminate some of the basic issues: “O f the seven professionals on our staff, two have fa cu lty rank. They have been here more than 1 7 years....W e are now considered ‘adm inistrative staff,’ and therefore, not entitled to raises, benefits, and privileges o f faculty. W e are not listed in the college bulletin this year. ...In the past, we have been listed w ith the Groundskeeper! I kid you not!” ‘W e are classed as administrative staff, b u t are allowed to attend fa cu lty meetings, but have no vote. O ur status is indefinite. ” S e lf g o v e r n a n c e Krom part and DiFelice report that the area of the Standards dealing with governance was the most highly achieved by librarians: at least 75% were provided the opportunity to participate in university governance (p. 15). The regional survey results provide an interesting contrast to this find­ ing. W hen asked how librarians’ interests were represented on their campus, 34% indicated it was through a library com m ittee, 20% through college/ university representation and 17% noted other similar kinds of forms. Similarly, w hen queried about involvement in campus-wide decisions, the answers were: representation in faculty/adminis- trative governance (34%) “o th e r” m echanisms (33%), and a library com m ittee (27%). Taken to ­ gether, these results show a spread o f some autono­ mous input. However, these responses are overshadowed by the answer most prom inent in both questions fo­ cusing on th e library director. Eighty-eight percent responded th at the director represented the li­ brarians’ interests on campus and 67% listed the director as th e vehicle for involvement in campus­ wide decisions. None of th e above responses came close to these and th e spread in input would point to a weaker autonomy in the face o f centralization of library “voice” and authority in the library direc­ tor. O ne could assume that the director would remain im portant under any rank/status system, but the noted “lim bo” in which these librarians operate could account for centralizing input in the person of th e director. Again, librarians’ comments illustrate th e point: “i t is difficult to make our voices heard. ” “Regardless o f rank/status, librarians need to be members o f standing committees so that (we) can keep abreast o f campus and curricular changes and so that fa cu lty and administration benefit fr o m the various expertise available fr o m the library. ” “Because librarians have fa cu lty rank and are not tenure track we are in a nebulous class. We do serve as representatives on some committees b u t f o r the most part we are not elected. W e are classified as administrators fo r some issues and are treated like fa cu lty on others. ” C o m p e n s a tio n At least 50% o f th e faculty status surveys indi­ cated lower salaries for librarians than for teaching faculty. In th eir review o f benefits, Krompart and D iFelice saw “widespread differences and confu­ sion a b o u t th e s e c o n d itio n s o f em p lo y m en t ...probably because the rights and responsibilities of teaching faculty are usually recognized as a traditional package...inextricably related....Some benefits, e.g., sabbaticals and research funds, were 974 / C&RL News theoretically available to librarians, but it was not always clear if librarians, in practice, received these benefits” (p. 15) While the results from the review o f surveys are not terribly conclusive on the compensation b en e­ fits of faculty status, the librarians in the regional survey still perceived status and rank as an im por­ tant issue (83%). Thirty-nine percent indicated they were not un d er contract. W hen asked what their rank or status affected on their campus, 73% answered that it affected the faculty’s perception and 64% noted it affected librarian salaries and benefits. T he issue o f status is still linked to profes­ sional relationships and standing, and in turn, with basic compensation issues. The w ritten responses fill in m ore details: “M y position is considered an administrative position and promotions and raises are difficult to achieve. It w ould be easier i f m y position was faculty status; I could advance in rank through fa cu lty promotion structure. ” “The status o f librarians changes as top adminis­ trators o f the college change. W e received faculty benefits, but w ork an administrative schedule.” “The one librarian who is tenured is low paid and has not advanced as fa s t as faculty hired at the same tim e.” L ib r a ria n r e s p o n s e O ne of the keys to the regional survey was to encourage written responses from th e librarians. O f th e faculty status surveys review ed from 1 9 8 1 -1 9 8 4 , “o n ly slig h tly m o re th a n 25 percen t...queried librarians. [This] collection of survey responses lacks substantial inform ation about what librarians experience and think. [There were] interesting results when librarian and direc­ to r responses w ere com pared” (p. 16). Sixty-seven percent of the retu rn ed regional surveys provided substantive com m ents and clarification. Those com m ents are an integral part of th e results p re ­ sented here. Additional to those previously given, th e following represents all the areas w ritten on in the responses. Although directors were not a part o f the survey group, two did take the trouble to copy th e form and respond: ‘W e thankfully do not have a stratified campus. O f course, w e are always concerned about salary equity, b u t the upper administration does try to be fa ir .” “W e will be studying this issue [librarians rank/ status] carefully next year. ” As Krom part and DiFelice noted, responses from librarians at the same institution did not entirely agree with the first director. The second com m ent struck a chord. T hat was the third institu­ tion considering a ranking structure for librarians. Given that so many librarians believed in th e im­ portance of the issue, this is perhaps not a surprise. The variations of status and personnel issues brought the most responses in attem pts to explain local situations. The following is very typical of seven other responses: “Librarians can vote at faculty meetings and sit on fa cu lty committees but they do not have aca­ demic rank, tenure, or a nine-m onth contract. ” There were five responses similar to this expla­ nation: “There is nothing really comparable. We have too m any exceptions and perversions o f the usual categories....All librarians are lum ped into a cate­ gory w hich is euphemistically called ‘administra­ tive, ’ but the actual meaning o f the terms will differ between the library and other units and within units. ” Still others delineated the term s o f employment as non-faculty: “[Giving ‘Adm inistration as the group o f com­ parable rank/status, it was suggested that] some are ‘more equal’ than others. Personnel on campus has been ad hoc, aprofessional.” “The perception o f librarians as faculty/adm ini­ stration changes fr o m one administration to an­ other. Librarians receive fa cu lty benefits, b ut work an eleven-month contract like administrative of­ fices.” A few took th e pains to explain the source of both non-faculty and faculty librarians within th eir staffs: “I was the last librarian hired at a fa cu lty rank. The person hired after me was not given a choice and was hired as Professional Staff. We are trying to get this changed. ” “I am the fir s t non-faculty librarian to be hired at the library. O ur director was firm ly opposed to faculty status. There are fiv e who currently hold faculty status and one, me, who is considered pro­ fessional staff.” The issues of compensation were addressed very specifically in some of the responses: “Librarians have a 12-month contract as op­ posed to a 10-month contract w hich the teaching fa cu lty has. I feel, therefore, that some monetary compensation should be available to librarians as teachingfaculty can earn extra money b y teaching during the sum m er and this is not possible f o r librarians. ” “This is the fir s t year that I will be paid under administrative staff. In the past, I have always been paid according to fa cu lty raises. I am form ally complaining about this, this afternoon, b u t expect to get nowhere. ” In contrast to m ovement in th ree libraries to create ranking and prom otion structures for librari­ ans, th ere seem ed to b e o th er movements afoot in th e opposite direction: December 1989 / 975 “The university administration is, I suspect, highly interested in controlling w hat it sees as an educated proletariat (librarians, com puter center staff, etc.) and it is, I believe, trying to move us into the administrative corral. ” “We are currently undergoing a change in status; it is subtle but still present. O ur current director and the administration w ould like, it seems, to have us more closely aligned in status, etc. w ith the administrative arm o f the University, rather than the faculty. A t present the director o f libraries is an administrator, while other librarians are still al­ lowed to vote in fa cu lty meetings and serve on university committees. W e are beginning to see this ‘benefit’ erode as our presence on certain commit­ tees is now being questioned, This issue is complex, b u t our status seems to be slowly eroding toward that o f ‘administrators’ rather than faculty. ’ W e do not receive ‘tenure, ’ but rather ‘continuing appoint­ ment. Finally, th ere was not universal agreem ent that this issue was important. Eleven percent said it was not and 16% said it affected nothing on their cam­ pus. Dissent took different forms: “In the library, w e simply have no time to be on a tenure track. The fa cu lty rank/status issue is an ambiguous one and seems to make little actual difference in how librarians are treated, ” “O ur hybrid works very well f o r us and our status, salary, benefits, etc., are comparable to other academic librarians in our area....As you might imagine, evaluations are tricky. However, we have to date managed, to survive and have a good rela­ tionship w ith the otherfaculty and the administra­ tion and good morale in-house. ” ‘W e are not tenurable and do not have faculty ranks. Some w ould say there w ould be disadvan­ tages, such as the need to participate in scholarly activities. To m y m ind this is not a disadvantage, ju s t a responsibility. ” W e have fa cu lty status, but are non-tenured— a comfortable compromise. ” C o n c lu s io n K rom part and DiFelice do not paint a rosy picture of the long-term success o f faculty status so far. Some evaluations o f th e regional survey results have been offered, but those individual pieces do not give an overview o f the situation. Put together, they form a picture that is perhaps more bleak: non-faculty librarians would find themselves allied with the professionals who work in the administra­ tive offices of their institution. Those offices typi­ cally are under administrative direction and do not have autonomy to act or participate in institutional self governance. The alternative to this alliance is th e perceived lack of peers or allies within the college/university system. Personnel and prom o­ tion systems would be largely unclear and based on prevailing ideas in library and college/university administration. Theyw ould shift over time. Partici­ pation in self governance would be largely ineffec­ tive, w here available. F or the most part, effective action on behalf of both librarians and the library would be centered in the library director leaving the professional environm ent dependent on this administrator. Because o f ad hoc and shifting poli­ cies as well as a lack of clear perceptions about the status o f librarians, salaries would lag behind teach­ ing faculty and perhaps be based on clerical staff or “adm inistration” raises. The cumulative effect of this would leave the librarian isolated within the library; without a context from which to build the necessary credibility and power base to change these policies (and practices) and gain equity and voice on their campus, or even a professional con­ text for growth. While the preceding is a pessimistic reading of the results, it does not stray from them . The variety of status situations is startling and the prom inent response that there were no other p ee r groups around was perhaps most troubling o f all. Status and ranking, and compensation issues vary and shift with administrators and they seem to lack reasoning (none were reported by the librarians). They result in inequities, split staffs, and no real structures in place to challenge the results. Many librarians do not even have contracts. Incentive structures for raises and promotions are probably minimal (the survey did not contain a question on this, but should have as a logical link to the contract question). All o f this comes out in the results and comments. In sum, while Krompart and D iFelice find fac­ ulty librarians not fully achieving the stated goals of the ACRL Standards, the situation for the librari­ ans in this survey is at least as bad. Perhaps the key to this is that while faculty librarians may not yet fully participate in the privileges due to them , they have the crucial elem ents of context and allies (teaching faculty as peers), professional structure (tenure and promotion), and the right to partici­ pate in institutional governance. Any one of these is difficult to build without the other two. There seem to exist few well-developed alternatives to faculty status like th e one at Dickinson College.3 Any reevaluation must account for these weaknesses and problems, as well as those problem s with fac­ ulty status. In the long run, the decision will need to be made about which alternative contains the most potential to successfully adapt and achieve the 3Joan M. B ech te l, “A cadem ic P rofessional Status: An Alternative for Librarians,” Journal o f Academic Librarianship 11 (N ovem ber 1985): 289-92. 976 / C&RL News spirit, if not the letter, of the ACRL Standards for Faculty Status. Many of the rights and privileges of the faculty librarian would be difficult to build or replace outside of that context. A u th o r’s Note: The author w ould like to thank Ene Andrílli and Rebecca Reilly f o r their help w ith this project. A list o f the institutions involved in the survey, along w ith methodological notes and tabulated survey results, may be obtained by sending an SASE to: John Buschman, Rider College Library, 2083 Lawrenceville Rd., Lawrenceville, NJ 08648- 3099. ■ ■ Hearings to be held on standards for faculty status T he ACRL Academ ic Status C o m m ittee is charged with reviewing and updating the stan­ dards, guidelines, and related docum ents that p e r­ tain to faculty status and academic governance. The C om m ittee will hold the first of two open hearings on th e Standards f o r Faculty Status fo r College and University Librarians docum ent at the 1990 ALA M idwinter M eeting in Chicago. These hearings are a unique opportunity for the m em ber­ ship to com m ent upon this im portant statem ent before th e C om m ittee begins its deliberations. The Midwinter hearing will be held on Sunday, January 7, 9:00-11:00 a.m. The Standards f o r Faculty Status f o r College and University Librarians docum ent was adopted on June 26,1971. In th e almost two decades that have passed since then, it has not b ee n revised, although many changes have taken place in college and university libraries. F or example, th e move toward participatory governance, which has characterized this period, does not seem to have strengthened the bid o f academic librarians for faculty status. In fact, it appears th at th ere may be fewer institutions that grant librarians faculty status today than th ere were in 1971. The Standard as it is now w ritten follows: S tan d ard s fo r fa c u lty sta tu s fo r c o lle g e a n d u n iv e r sity lib r a ria n s In order to recognize formally th e college or university librarian’s academic status, the Associa­ tion of College and Research Libraries and the American Library Association endorse, and urge all institutions o f higher education and th eir govern­ ing bodies to adopt, the following standards for all academic librarians: 1. Professional responsibilities and se lf determ i­ nation. Each librarian should be assigned general responsibilities within his particular area o f com pe­ tence. H e should have maximum possible latitude in fulfilling these responsibilities. However, the degree to which he has fulfilled them should be regularly and rigorously reviewed. A necessary elem ent of this review must be appraisal by a com m ittee o f peers who have access to all available evidence. 2. Library governance. College and university libraries should adopt an academic form o f govern­ ance. T he librarians should form as a library faculty whose role and authority is similar to that of the faculties of a college or th e faculty o f a school or a departm ent. 3. College anduniversity governance. Librarians should b e eligible for m em bership in the academic senate or equivalent body at their college or univer­ sity on the same basis as other faculty. 4. Compensation. The salary scale for librarians should be the same as that for o th er academic categories with equivalent education and experi­ ence. Librarians should normally be appointed for th e academic year. If a librarian is expected to work through th e sum m er session, his salary scale should be adjusted similarly to th e sum m er session scale of o th er faculty at his college or university. 5. Tenure. Librarians should be covered by te n ­ u re provisions the same as those o f o th er faculty. In th e p retenure period, librarians should be covered by w ritten contracts or agreem ents th e same as those of o th er faculty. 6. Promotion. Librarians should be prom oted through th e ranks and steps on the basis o f their academic proficiency and professional effective­ ness. A p e e r review system similar to that used by other faculty is th e prim ary basis o f judgm ent in the prom otion process for academic librarians. The librarians’ prom otion ladder should have the same titles, ranks, and steps as that of other faculty. 7. Leaves. Sabbatical and other research leaves should be available to librarians on the same basis, and with the same requirem ents, as they are avail­ able to o th er faculty. 8. Research fu n d s. Librarians should have access to funding for research projects on th e same basis as o th er faculty. 9. Academic freedom . Librarians in colleges and