june06b.indd


Pamela Palmer and Chris Matz 

Promoting writing among 
nontenured faculty 
Seven
up,
seven
down



Writing—and writing successfully—for publication is the most diffi cult profes­
sional communication most librarians will 
perform. It is time­consuming and unwieldy 
to work around other duties, and yet it is 
often critical to promotion and tenure status. 
Since successful writing does not spontane­
ously generate itself, administrators and 
supervisors must facilitate an optimal envi­
ronment for it. Seven factors that can support 
quality writing by tenure­track “junior” library 
faculty are listed here, along with seven 
circumstances that tend to discourage those 
efforts. A writing group for junior faculty 
members is recommended as a method of 
managing the scholarly writing process in 
academic libraries. 

Lessons learned from a writing group 
The demographic composition of the faculty 
at the University of Memphis (UM) Libraries 
has changed dramatically since 2001. There 
are now eight junior faculty members on 
tenure track, while five years ago there were 
none. The UM Library tenure and promotion 
guidelines for the library faculty emphasize 
scholarly publication, and yet for most of 
the junior faculty, this was the first time that 
writing was emphasized as a professional 
requirement or a criterion for tenure. Senior 
faculty members were comfortable to act as 
mentors for every facet of the tenure process 
. . . except writing. What could be done to 
maximize the publication success of the 
junior faculty? 

To investigate this further, the UM’s ex­
perience with a writing group was analyzed. 
The authors’ were part of the group from 

its origin in 2003; Pamela Palmer founded, 
planned, and implemented the group while 
serving as chair of the tenure and promotion 
committee; Chris Matz has been an active 
participant from the start and comes up for 
tenure in fall 2006. From writing group ex­
perience and examination of the literature, 
we identified fourteen key points, crucial to 
writing group success. 

Seven conditions that stimulate 
writing for publication 

1. A quick introduction to publication 
expectations. Many junior faculty members 
will come to their first assignment without 
any formal experience or education in writing 
(the LIS curriculum is already badly over­bur­
dened1). It is vital that they become aware of 
the need to write and be published. Ideally 
as soon as they accept the new position, 
they should formally review the tenure and 
promotion requirements and gain a coherent 
understanding of exactly what is required 
of them. If it’s a precise number of articles 
or book chapters, the beginning is the best 
time to comprehend the requirements with 
crystal clarity. 

2. Supportive department heads. Being 
a “good” supervisor is an amalgamation of 
many elements. Those who wish to encour­
age their junior faculty to write are “good” 
when they substantively advocate for writ­

Pamela Palmer is reference librarian, e-mail: prpalmer 
@ m e m p h i s. e d u ,  a n d  C h r i s  M a t z  i s  c o l l e c t i o n  
development librarian, e-mail: cmatz@memphis.edu, 
at the University of Memphis 
© 2006 Pamela Palmer and Chris Matz 

372C&RL News June 2006

mailto:cmatz@memphis.edu
http:memphis.edu


ing, provide opportunities such as fl exible 
scheduling (see below), make introductions 
to editors or publishing forums, act as a 
sounding board for ideas and research, and 
generally demystify the writing process. 

3. Flexible scheduling. Research and 
writing take time, and personal timetables 
must reflect that need. Public service librar­
ians tend to have more control over their 
daily schedules than technical services li­
brarians. Yet, if the junior faculty members 
in each unit are being assessed by the same 
tenure guidelines, similar accommodations 
must be sought. Expecting librarians to do 
their writing on their own time is plainly 
unreasonable. 

4. Supportive peers. Other junior fac­
ulty members are in the same boat, if at vari­
ous stages of the tenure process. It’s sensible 
for them to share their experiences, even 
casually. This can lead to formal collabora­
tive writing efforts2 or simply provide a way 
to build collegiality between librarians who 
would rarely meet otherwise. Those benefi ts 
extend far beyond the parameters of tenure 
and promotion. 

5. Suppor tive administrator s. Upper 
management must do more than state a pri­
ority for junior faculty members to publish, 
they must demonstrate it. The easiest way 
to do this is for them to publish regularly 
themselves. Evidence of their scholarship 
should be readily available, and that of 
senior nonadministrators, as well. Coordi­
nating immediate supervisors to bolster the 
writing process is also crucial. 

6. Suppor tive wor king envir onment. 
Acknowledging the accomplishment of 
library faculty authors can go a long way to­
wards encouraging more scholarly output. 
The Mississippi State University Libraries, 
among others, have created a Web site that 
lists faculty publications and even exhibits 
the published works to the public.3 When 
junior faculty publications are noticed and 
rewarded, the authors are both encour­
aged to continue and in turn become 
strong mentors themselves, perpetuating 
achievement. 

7. Suppor tive finances. Professional 
development is expensive enough for senior 
faculty members. Junior faculty members 
with lower salaries are even more heavily 
dependent on travel/professional develop­
ment funds for research trips, participation 
in conferences, and involvement with pro­
fessional organizations. Expenses should be 
covered to the fullest extent allowed by the 
development budget; some libraries may 
even wish to consider nontenured members 
first in the allocation of travel funds. 

Seven conditions that hinder writing 
for publication 

1 .  I n a d e q u a t e  p e r s o n a l  t i m e  m a n -
agement. It’s easy to get caught up in the 
excitement of a new position. There are so 
many duties competing for a junior faculty 
member’s attention, and the realization of 
just how much time is required to write for 
publication may be dangerously long in 
coming. Taking responsibility for prioritizing 
one’s professional time towards writing is 
key, and the earlier done, the better. 

2 .  O v e r w h e l m i n g  c o m m i t t e e  a s -
signments. Of course, the junior faculty 
members hardly set their personal agenda 
in a vacuum. It is common for new hires 
to be immediately assigned to committee 
vacancies. As academic libraries continue 
to resemble a business, the committee 
structure is a basic expression of the new 
culture. That aspect of professional service 
must be moderated, however, if a librarian 
is expected to publish successfully. 

3. Underrepresentation of  the impor-
tance of  publishing. If administrators do 
not publish, and department heads do not 
publish, and senior colleagues do not pub­
lish, it will be difficult to genuinely impress 
the priority upon junior faculty members. 
Further, publication should be clearly tied 
to financial reward and/or promotion within 
the library (which would certainly promote 
continued writing by librarians who have 
been granted tenure). 

4. Poor definition of  publishing r e-
q u i r e m e n t s  i n  t e n u r e  a n d  p r o m o t i o n  

June 2006  373 C&RL News 



standards. Academic libraries echo the fre­
quency and tone of university reassessment 
patterns. This can lead to frequent revisions 
in criteria and imperfect understanding of 
expectations. Even when a stable set of 
requirements exists, junior faculty have 
difficulty translating the words into a call 
to action. A writing group can hone in on 
the meaning and importance of critical ele­
ments of the standards and provide a forum 
for discussion. 

5. Absence of  an effective road map. 
As many academic libraries undergo a cul­
ture shift to learning commons, the previous 
working model of when and how scholarly 
writing is accomplished can be lost in the 
transition. Sometimes it’s just a matter of 
remembering how to begin.4 Beyond that, 
clarifying the status of publishing as an in­
tegral career­long focus is essential. Junior 
faculty are rightly confused when they see 
senior faculty are inactive authors. 

6. Role models are hard to find. During 
earlier decades, libraries may have placed 
less emphasis on scholarly publication, leav­
ing relatively few senior faculty with strong 
writing credentials. Making formal writing 
mentoring part of the regular schedule puts 
it on firmer footing. As Level and Mach said, 
“Time scheduled for the meetings gives 
credibility to the group’s importance as part 
of professional development.”5 Without this 
level of structure, contact with role models 
may be fl eeting. 

7. Nothing new under the sun. First, 
have something to say”: this bit of wisdom 
may serve to smash down the best intentions 
of many young librarians, who upon review 
of the professional literature feel they have 
nothing to contribute. While there is room 
to legitimately critique the oeuvre,6 each 
librarian has a unique perspective on their 
world of work. No library requires a peer­
reviewed article or chapter right out of the 
gate, and there are many forums available 
to sharpen writing skills and confi dence 
while working towards a major scholarly 
publication. Consider your library’s or state 
organization’s newsletter, and don’t over­

look online journals like LIScareer.com or 
Info Career Trends. 

Addressing the issues 
Academic libraries talk a good game about 
the importance of producing scholarly 
writing, but it’s uncommon to fi nd one that 
supports it fully. A mechanism like a writing 
group can help address many of the factors 
listed above. Writing groups ground junior 
faculty members in a comfortable setting 
with other peers and catalyze the writing 
process. By providing the opportunity to 
engage in practical exercises—such as 
reviewing research methods, composing 
sample thesis statements, and exploring 
publishing guidelines for various journals 
and monographs—they offer practical in­
sight into the process and content of writ­
ing for publication. In the end, however, it 
comes down to the individual librarian to 
strike the proper balance between scholarly 
writing and other professional responsibili­
ties. The writing group can only show them 
the way. 

Notes 
1. Cheryl L. Davis and Barbara B. Mo­

ran, “Preparing tomorrow’s professionals: 
LIS schools and scholarly communication,” 
C&RL News 66 (2005): 24–27. 

2. Margaret Foote, “Collaborative author­
ship in North Carolina libraries: Past, pres­
ent, and future,” North Carolina Libraries 
59 (Spring 2000): 20–24. 

3. Deborah Lee, “Mentoring the unten­
ured librarian: The research committee,” 
C&RL News 66 (2005): 711–713, 724. 

4. Rachel Singer Gordon, “Getting started 
in library publication,” American Libraries 
35 no 1 (January 2004): 66–68. 

5. Allison V. Level and Michelle Mach, 
“”Peer mentoring: One institution’s ap­
proach to mentoring academic librarians,” 
Library Management 26 (2005): 307. 

6. Rodger C. Lewis, “Publish or perish? 
Looking at publication for tenure from the 
other side of the street,” C&RL News 61 
(2000): 606­608. 

374C&RL News June 2006

http:LIScareer.com