ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 6 0 6 / C&RL News ■ July/A u g u st 2000 THE WAY I SEE IT Publish or perish? Looking at publication for tenure from the other side of the street by Rodger C. Lewis F or academic librarians, Che emphasis on publication gradually became a major Factor for their promotion and/or tenur during the late 50s and early 60s, as col­ leges and universities continued to expand with government grants and G.I. tuition money. Librarians, often with two master’s de­ grees, began to feel resentment about their ostensibly subaltern position in relation to the faculty on many U.S. campuses. Sala­ ries were the major issue, but reimburse­ ment for travel and attendance at meet­ ings, sabbaticals, and free time for profes­ sional reading were among the other ad­ vantages sought. Many librarians believed that identifi­ cation with the teaching faculty was the fast track to this cornucopia of blessings. Others, agreeing that a more equitable wage was justified, felt they were already in a time-honored profession, as old as the oldest university; they wished to re­ tain their separateness from the teaching faculty and did not feel demeaned by be­ ing included as “staff" with many adminis­ trative positions. History shows this latter view was less persuasive. But on many campuses there were a couple of interesting bumps on that road to a new identity: the teaching fac­ e ulty began to feel threatened by the possi­ bility of having to share whatever wealth and privilege there might be with a larger group, and they objected vociferously; the technical services librarians realized that the public service librarians, in their at­ tempt to take on a new identity, were emphasizing their instructional contact with students and their assistance to professors at the expense of the clever people in the back room, so a break in the ranks oc­ curred that threatened to derail the move­ ment. Both of these objections were resolved when the professors found themselves needing more bodies to establish a strong union, and the librarians united under the concept of research and publication. A c a r r o t -o n -a -s t ic k ? Faculty status and/or tenure for librarians has thus become a popular carrot-on-a- stick, if not a norm, in academic libraries. But in order to achieve this prominence, librarians are constantly reminded that the measure for their achievement is (and not a few professors enjoy the irony in this): publication, publication, publication. The result has been, if not a Faustian bargain, at least a comédie hu m a in e in which the players often are not perform- About the author Rodger C Lewis retired as a librarian from the California State University System in 1986. He worked in several universities in Florida and California from 1954 to 1986, e-mail: mplewis@greenvillenc.com mailto:mplewis@greenvillenc.com C&RL News ■ July/August 2000 / 607 ing the tasks they are best equipped to perform , but they are obliged to delegate many o f those duties to a low er ech elon to em ulate the “publish or perish ” frenzy o f the teaching faculty. It is a policy that h as h id d en c o s ts and n e g a tiv e c o n s e ­ q u en ces w ell beyond, I suspect, what was anticipated by those seek in g only a little m ore m oney and prestige. The ironies In those institutions where tenure is required for continuing employment, the position ad­ vertisements are more often than not a testi­ mony to the hypocrisy o f the current man­ d a te s : th e ad s d e s c r ib e r e c o g n iz a b le qualifications for librarianship, but what is actually required is a person who knows the language o f the trade, but who must delegate much of the actual work to a subordinate— a paraprofessional— while the librarian is en­ gaged in grasping for the brass ring o f ten­ ure. This means attending meetings, perform­ ing community service, and getting published. This latter category is the dominant area which, under the guise o f research, may ac­ count for as much as 80% of the person’s evaluation. It has becom e the s in e q u a n o n for enjoying (and one may question the use o f that word) faculty status. Another irony o f the “publish or perish” syndrome, which should occur to anyone who has been involved in serial cancellation projects as budgets becom e tighter, is the fact that concomitant with the need to publish on the part o f all faculty, is the increase o f pub­ lications to accommodate these writers. We are encouraging the proliferation o f journals to provide space for tenure-driven articles, while we are canceling subscriptions because o f budget constraints! What’s wrong with this picture? Publication is useful, not mandatory Regularly scanning much o f the library lit­ erature during the past 30 years, I have to conclude that libraries would have done just as well had the majority o f the articles never been written. This opinion is not as subjec­ tive as some might wish. Recently, Alan M. Edelson, retired presi­ dent and CEO o f J. B. Lippincott, lamenting the proliferation o f journals with the conse­ quential decline o f quality, said, “It appears We are encouraging the prolifera­ tion of journals to provide space for tenure-driven articles, w hile we are canceling subscriptions because of budget constraints! What's wrong with this picture? to me that a not insignificant proportion of the journals rolling off the presses today con­ tain a not insignificant proportion o f articles that the scholarly and scientific world could well live without. . . . “Perhaps he/she ought to have delayed publishing anything until . . . a more signifi­ cant insight could be realized. Unfortunately this is unrealistic for most authors who, un­ der our current systems, must frequently document their activities to obtain research grants or tenure or both.”1 This lament has been echoed by others on both sides of the publishing industry and is frequently a topic on various electronic discussion lists. The redundancy o f subject matter is obvious, and some technical pro­ posals, for example, have such limited ap­ plication as to be su i g en er is o n a minor scale. Many o f the utilitarian or provocative topics that do get printed are as readily available, and in greater detail, from discussion groups or informal dialogue with colleagues. Zachary Karabell calls attention to the fact that state governments are once again trying to limit or deny tenure altogether because it is taking the teacher out o f the classroom. Librarians ought to be aware that, as money becom es tighter, legislators and administra­ tors may conclude that a university library can be adequately staffed by more parapro- fessionals and fewer certified librarians— not because the former are better qualified, but because they are there everyday getting the actual work done, while the latter are spend­ ing time insuring their own careers.2 They surely will perceive, too, that ac­ quisitions costs have skyrocketed, partly due to the proliferation o f journals generated by this need to publish. Digitizing is not in it­ self a solution and generates sufficient con­ troversy to be a subject for another time and place. 608 / C&RL News ■ July/August 2000 Equalize the benefits for the theorist and the practitioner, and let each do the job he or she does best. Many academic libraries have placed such an emphasis on publishing that all new li­ brarians are enrolled in committees in which topics for research are suggested, various avenues to publication are recommended, and encouragement, if not enthusiasm, is sustained by personal success stories; more time away from the work. Publication is, and has been, useful, but it need not be mandatory. Librarians are just as valuable because o f their technical skills, sub­ ject specialties, and ability to mediate between the classroom and the collection. When a stu­ dent or professor seeks assistance from a li­ brarian, he or she has no interest in whether that librarian has published; what is required is som eone who listens well and is able to translate a frequently ambiguous or garbled need into a structured search of a database ( “L ib rary b u ild in g s . . . ” c o n tin u e d f r o m p a g e 5 9 1 ) If a b o o k provides con texts, so do li­ braries. T heir ex isten ce provides a sen se o f past and present and im plies that “there is m ore to the study o f philosophy than a b o o k by Kant, m ore to the study o f sci­ en c e than an article on geoph ysics. . . . By their sp ace and su bstance they provide a sen sory understanding that know led ge is broad er than any o n e su bject field. . . . It is this sen sory understanding that w e of­ ten forget w hen w e discuss inform ation. Humans are more than a collection o f e lec ­ trical impulses. “L earning, kn o w in g , ta k e s p la c e on many levels. . . . T h ere is som ething w e know about know led ge w hen w e walk in a library that we do not know w hen w e sit at a com puter term inal.”13 Notes 1. David L. Marcus “File this under shock, future,” U.S. N ews & W orld Report (July 12, 1999): 48. or o f a collection that has been assiduously developed, monitored, and cataloged. In a world o f overspecialization, librar­ ians may still be generalists (as opposed to the narrower and slicker term “information specialist”). They are then invaluable as me­ diators betw een the humble student or the prestigious professor and the worldwide col­ lection o f information (as opposed to “data”). I believe we are about to experience a revolution in which the classroom teacher and the “library’s librarian” will achieve equal appreciation in every sense from the admin­ istration and from their peers. Equalize the benefits for the theorist and the practitioner, and let each do the job he or she does best. Notes 1. Alan Edelson, “Re: Electronic availabil­ ity,” message to Liblicense-L Discussion List at liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on O ctober 14, 1999- Archived at http://www.library.yale. edu/~llicense/ListArchives/9910/msg00017. html. 2. Zachary Karabell, W h at’s C ollege for?: The Struggle to D e fin e A m e r ic a n H ig h e r E d u ­ c a tio n (New York: Basic Books, 1998). ■ 2. Nancy R. McAdams, “Trends in Academic Library Facilities,” L ibrary Trends 36, 2 (Fall 1987): 289. 3. Jay K. Lucker, “Library Buildings: Their Cur­ rent State and Future Development,” Sci-Tech Li­ braries o f the Future 13, 1 (Fall 1992): 4. 4. Walt Crawford, “Paper Persists: Why Physical Library Collections Still Matter.” Online 22, 1 (Jan.-Feb. 1998); 42-48. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Peter Lyman, “What is a Digital Library?” B ooks, Bricks, & Bytes, D a e d a lu s (Fall 1996): 12. 8. Richard J. Bazillon and Connie Braun, A c a d e m ic L ib raries a s H igh-T ech G atew ays (Chicago: American Library Association, 1995): 19. 9. Marilyn Gell Mason, “The Yin and Yang o f Knowing,” B ooks, Bricks, & Bytes, D a e d a lu s (Fall 1996): 165. 10. Ibid., 167. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., 170. ■ mailto:liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu http://www.library.yale