Initiative Review Group XVIII Final Report June 30, 2001
Support scholarly efforts of library faculty
Members:
Necia Parker-Gibson, chair, Beth Juhl, Sarah Santos, Deb Kulczak, Mikey King, Betty Austin
In the discussion of our charge and the history of scholarship in the University Libraries, we decided to focus on faculty members and their issues, since under University policy scholarship is required of faculty members for annual review, tenure, and promotion. Comments on the initiative show that some staff members are interested in the prospect of participation in scholarship, and it was agreed that although staff scholarship is important as it fits into the library mission, we recommend that it should be considered by the implementation team that follows this IRG.
Questions have been raised by committee members regarding the appropriateness of combining the work of IRG 16, "Create a staff development and in-house training program for library faculty and staff," with this IRG, "Support scholarly efforts of faculty."
While the aims of both groups are relatively compatible, the goals are not. That is, staff and faculty development, orientation, and training efforts are closely tied to employer issues, such as staff morale and service standards, while scholarly and creative activities are by their nature more diffuse and varied and not necessarily directly tied to immediate institutional goals. If staff and/or faculty need help doing their jobs, training and continuing education are clearly needed. Conversely, support (in all its forms) of scholarly efforts of faculty and staff is a personal issue for those faculty and staff members. Faculty scholarship is a requirement of our employment here and is a substantial element of our evaluation and promotion. It is the responsibility of the individual, not necessarily the institution/employer.
The desired outcome for IRG 16 is better staff, for a better library. The desired outcome for IRG 18 is more and better scholarly output for a more knowledgeable and stronger faculty. The mechanisms used to achieve these will not necessarily be the same. It would be a shame to dilute the energy, momentum, and effectiveness of either group in the effort to combine the two.
It is our hope that as you read the attached report, decisions regarding the merger of the groups will lead to some discussion on our recommendation.
1. Background and Present Setting
Support for library faculty scholarship and research efforts has varied in the past, as institutional and library priorities have changed and as funds have been available for travel and staff development.
Administrative support for library faculty efforts can be organized in several different categories:
Travel Support (current policy attached)
Funds and leave time have been allocated for three different kinds of travel, though purpose of the trip has not always influenced the level of support:
Official Library Representation
Individual represents the library in an official capacity
Professional Participation
Individual is presenting a paper, chairing a panel, conducting committee work, serving as an officer of a professional organization
Professional Development
Individual is attending a workshop or conference, visiting another library, or other opportunities for professional growth
Department and Division Heads sign off on travel request forms but do not have budget authority over travel allocations. Faculty members and staff may request funding in advance of an event and will ideally know before attending that event what amount of travel expense the Libraries will underwrite. Funds are paid from the both Friends or Campaign accounts (costs are generally paid out of pocket by the librarian and then reimbursed) and from the Maintenance account (state monies that can be used to pay for projected travel expenses in advance).
Travel funding has varied over the years; last year the Libraries spent approximately $37,000 on travel support for faculty and staff. The use of travel funds varies among librarians, depending on their interest in professional activities and in their willingness or ability to spend money out of pocket or to be away from home and family.
Tuition Remission and Leave Time for Classes (forms and policy attached)
Librarians and staff may request release time to attend classes on campus. Release time is limited to one class per semester.
Sabbaticals and Off-Campus Duty Assignments
Librarians may apply for OCDA under the policies stated in the campus faculty handbook. In the last decade, seven librarians have been granted OCDA and three librarians have had extended travel or educational leave (list attached).
Other Leave Time
In addition to leave time for professional travel, librarians may request leave time for research activities. There is no stated library policy on leave time and each Department or Division Head negotiates time off with the requesting librarian. Research or educational leave may fall into one of three categories:
As a part of the job assignment
Librarians may negotiate a certain percentage of time over a year to devote to scholarship pursuits as part of the job assignment. In recent discussions of the Library Faculty Personnel Document, librarians and supervisors have been encouraged to state scholarship and service goals in the annual statement of responsibilities and to come to an understanding on the amount of time it will take to accomplish those goals.
Research Leave (form attached)
Librarians have also been able to request a certain number of days or weeks away from the workplace to conduct research at other libraries or collections.
Educational Leave (University Policy attached)
Educational leave is a period of training during which time librarians pursue a regular full-time course of instruction to acquire a specific skill which is beneficial to the University. Educational leave may be granted to any appointed employee with or without pay and must be approved by the Chancellor.
Other ways in which the Libraries have fostered faculty scholarship include:
Formal and Informal Mentoring
In addition to the faculty supervisor, the Reappointment Committee reviews the progress of tenure-track faculty towards tenure and promotion. The Post-Tenure Review Committee reviews scholarship activities of tenured faculty. Informally, faculty members routinely seek out colleagues as potential co-authors or co-presenters.
In-Service Training and Colloquia
The Faculty Concerns Committee and library departments have in the past invited faculty members to present current research or projects of interest.
Teleconferences and Visiting Trainers
The Libraries routinely host from one to three teleconferences or workshops a year. Recent topics have included library service, copyright, New FirstSearch, and SciFinder.
2. Scholarship Issues for Faculty
General
Should faculty scholarship be evaluated on a uniform scale?
Are different levels of scholarship appropriate for individual faculty members, based on interest/expertise/other responsibilities? Are there times when exemplary service or performance above and beyond normal duties would or should substitute for scholarship?
If scholarship is ideally tied to one's performance, how can we best facilitate this?
Not all areas of librarianship have research problems or scholarship proposals readily apparent in them.
Is publication in refereed journals the preferred form of scholarship?
Although it is clear from the literature that librarianship is not the only professorate that is having this argument, the problem has never been settled. Does scholarship have to be written/published to be scholarship? Since creative activity is in our current definition, is it treated as co-equal with publication? If we accept creative efforts as scholarship, but the campus administration doesn't, de facto, are we doing our faculty a disservice by including them in our criteria?
Is scholarship in the area of librarianship weighted more heavily than scholarship in other areas? Should it be? Is there more room, in particular, to make course work in a needed language area, submission of subject headings to SACO, or other work-related endeavors count as scholarship?
How can the library administrators balance the needs of faculty (who are required to have scholarship for tenure) and with non-faculty, who also may have interests/abilities in scholarship?
Is there a policy on ILL costs or other non-travel costs related to scholarship? When (if at all) must one obtain approval for expenses?
Time
Does one negotiate a percentage of time for scholarship with one's department head?
Whose needs get priority? What if the parties can't agree on a compromise?
Is scholarship to be completed on work time, personal time, or a combination?
How much importance is the organization according it if it must be done primarily or solely on our personal time?
Who gets priority for release time? Who should get priority for release time?
Should it be those who haven't been productive, either pre- or post-tenure? Should it be those who have been productive, or who are willing to use the time to mentor others?
Sabbaticals
How do we give everyone who desires a sabbatical the same opportunities?
At what level does review of a sabbatical request/ project by department head/division head/admin group compromise academic freedom? Are those reviewers making the determination qualified to do so? Should the department head/division head/admin group have any control over the actual project, for assessing its worthiness? Where is the line between collegiality and hierarchy?
Is there an expectation for a completed product (i.e. a publication, software program, web project, etc), or is pure learning/developing further expertise a valid project, as it is in the case of teaching faculty?
If the requirement is a completed, concrete product, does that expectation apply to everyone? Who will evaluate the product(s)?
Is the level of staffing such an issue that it prevents many people from considering a sabbatical? Do division or department heads actively or passively discourage sabbatical requests because of a lack of staffing alternatives?
Is there an expectation that the majority of a sabbatical leave be spent outside Fayetteville? Are requests that involve travel off-campus taken more seriously?
Support for Conferences
At what level is travel funded? 100%? 50%? Variable?
Does it depend on how many conferences an individual requests to attend? Does it depend on the type of travel, the purpose(s) of the travel, all of the above?
What are the mechanics and policies for requesting travel support?
How are the mechanics conveyed to new faculty members? Are they? How much is learned of the processes by trial and error?
Are staff members eligible for travel support? How much? How much in relation to faculty?
Should not-yet-tenured librarians receive a higher level of support? Or those who have not been active in this area?
Expectations
When entry-level librarians are hired, how should they be mentored, to help make scholarship a priority?
What value/reward is there for scholarship in terms of performance review and compensation?
Formal and informal mentoring
How will mentoring occur? Will mentors get some scholarship or performance "credit" for mentioning? How will we match mentors and those to be mentored?
In-service training and colloquia
Should seminars taught in-house to other librarians or staff be considered scholarship, as they would be if they were presented at a separate (professional) conference?
How can we develop a common understanding or consensus among library faculty on what constitutes professionally-related scholarship or service? Disagreements about what is considered scholarship (and what scholarship is considered appropriate) are at the root of most discussion during tenure and promotion proceedings.
How scholarship can be made distinct from yet integrated with performance and service?
SURVEY
We designed and distributed a survey to faculty and non-classified personnel. The survey questions were drawn from discussion of the original comments about scholarship from the IRG survey.
1. What do you believe are the 3-5 biggest obstacles to your being effective in scholarly efforts?
All of the survey respondents mentioned time as their first or second obstacle, usually ahead of or co-equal with scheduling/staffing, and energy, a related issue. Others included the challenge of deciding on an appropriate project; the desire to do excellent scholarship in limited time and with limited experience; the lack of formal mentoring; the lack of a policy allowing us to schedule a regular time (perhaps as little as one hour per week) ....for research/reading/keeping up with literature on a regular basis; the lack of sharing with colleagues.
"We often learn of colleagues' accomplishments only in reappointment, tenure, post-tenure, or promotion evaluations. Or, as an entry in the library's annual report! I wish the brown bag lunches were successful and used for us to talk among ourselves about research in progress, publications completed, presentations made, etc..... - How about a group article on this group planning process?"
2. How do you think travel funds/support can be equitably distributed?
Suggestions included giving support for travel:
. at a level inversely proportional to salary (i.e., persons with lower salaries get a greater percentage of support than those with higher salaries)
. as a lump sum per year per librarian- though some respondents were specifically opposed to this:
"I would hate to see us get in the mode of merely distributing the same amount of funding to each person because I see a variety of levels of interest in travel and participation in activities. I think dollars are better spent on folks going to things they are really interested in or really related to their jobs. Because it is often difficult to predict at the beginning of a budget cycle what events one may wish to travel to during the next year, perhaps there should be some sort of quarterly or semi-annual consideration of requests."
. based on interest, recent travel patterns, and reason for travel (i.e., giving a presentation at a conference is higher priority than merely attending one)
. to those who haven't attended conferences in a while or ever, before giving to those who have.
. through a Faculty Travel Committee, whose members could insure that faculty receive support for professional development activities within the framework of policies established by the committee and with the available funds.
. require some type of performance, scholarship or service "results" from people who get funded for travel
3. Are there other models or alternatives for scholarship that our library should consider? (e.g., development of Service or Teaching Portfolios, Knowledge Exchange Model, five year "creativity" plans)
The Knowledge Exchange Model defined below, and the Boyer model, that includes developmental portfolios and creativity plans, were suggested by committee members; other suggestions included opting for a two-track system, so that librarians who wish to pursue scholarship would be allowed to do so, and those that don't would be on a professional/non-tenure track.
"The Knowledge Exchange Model (KEM) for scholarly publishing is based on the exchange economy of ideas which constitutes the research process. The current system of scholarly publishing is too costly to sustain. Much like discussions taking place in the "Scholar's Forum," KEM relies on a consortia of universities which would take responsibility for maintaining digital journals, proceedings, and abstracts, and professional academic associations which would provide content expertise thru editorial boards. Peer-reviewed articles can be aggregated into one or more journal, and supported by threaded discussions and automated indexing with metadata tagging. The consortia could provide technical writers to help researchers with preparing manuscripts that editorial boards' submission standards; archives will be future-proofed with secure paper backup copies. In short, we drop the "journal" as an organizing principle."
The only other suggestions were to be sure that we take certain types of performance-related products, such as electronic documents, digitization projects or submission of subject headings to SACO, creative efforts, such as music or dance, or the study of foreign languages as scholarship.
An argument that scholarship should not be restricted to job-related tasks or topics:
"[After work]....I have neither energy nor desire to spend time in research/writing about issues specifically related to my job, which is why I usually do research in other areas wholly unrelated-- I can muster a modicum of interest about those."
4. How can we best mentor our faculty members in scholarship? What structures should be in place to support mentoring?
"It should be made an organizational priority. That is the key."
Other suggestions include creation of a formal system of mentoring, offering scholarship credit to faculty members who mentor other faculty in this area, and encouragement of collaboration with other librarians or other teaching faculty. One respondent felt that the supervisor, the reappointment committee and the post-tenure review committee provide an adequate level of guidance. One respondent wanted to tell new faculty members to "Just Do It."
5. Is the definition of scholarship [as defined in the library faculty personnel document, reproduced below] acceptable?
Most respondents were partially ("a bit lacking") or fully satisfied with the definition, with the exceptions noted above. However, see below:
"Yes...based upon the traditional model of scholarship. No...based upon the existence of emerging models of academic scholarship."[refers back to Knowledge Exchange Model]
Or: "I think it is fine as far as it goes. However, we have to spell out some percentages, point system, or equivalences so that we all agree on how to value different accomplishments (For example how should an article in an in-state refereed journal weigh compared to a national non-refereed journal? Do articles authored singly weigh more than co-authored articles? How/should length of articles be considered? etc., etc., etc.) OR, at least we need to develop a very simple list of what is the minimum required."
END of SURVEY
3. Briefly describe how the initiative fits into the long-term goals and/or fulfills the mission of the University Libraries:
Provide fundamental library resources and services:
Through participation in professional activities and associations, library faculty members develop new principles and apply existing ones to professional theory and practice. Methods and techniques gleaned from our library colleagues around the world assist us in creating and maintaining a viable information center.
"Librarians have applied a wide range of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies in advancing the discipline's knowledge base. They engage in the scholarship of inquiry in order to apply their findings to the everyday challenges of providing library services. Especially important areas of inquiry for librarians include: conducting citation studies; analyzing how people seek and use information; constructing means for organizing bodies of data and information, and designing methods for precise and efficient information retrieval; establishing methods for evaluating the effectiveness of library services and processes; researching the effects of environment and library practices on the "life span" of the various information media found in libraries; discovering the communication modes and related factors that lead to the most effective reference interview, on that has the best chance of determining any given user's precise information needs; preparing analytical bibliographies; investigating the history of the book and recorded knowledge." Prepared by the ACRL Task Force on Institutional Priorities and Faculty Rewards, March 1998.
Respond to goals and objectives of other units on campus and support new and special-emphasis programs:
The University community is built upon, and draws its strength from collaboration and cohesion. Within the structure of academe, library faculty builds collections appropriate for research programs based on professional exchange with other faculty members.
"Being a member of the professorate of a university or college faculty is a state of mind that transcends the niceties and formalities of employment. It is a commitment to a transcendent academic culture, to an intellectual community, and to the pursuit of inquiry." W. Bede Mitchell and Bruce Morton, "On Becoming Faculty Librarians: Acculturation Problems and Remedies," College & Research Libraries 53:379-92 (September 1992).
Improve access to library and information resources:
In order to maintain currency and validity within the academic community, library faculty must be informed and aware of cutting-edge technology. Preparation and research enable us to make sound decisions regarding selection and maintenance of access points to information, and to plan for future innovations in information access.
"Librarians add to the sum of knowledge through their research into the information process and other areas of study. Service improvements and other advances in the field result from their participation in the library and other scholarly organizations." Prepared by the ACRL Committee on the Status of Academic Librarians, "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians," College & Research Libraries News 62:304-6 (March 2001).
Expand access to library and information services and participate in interlibrary cooperation:
The advancement of our profession depends increasingly upon collaborative efforts within the larger library community (our public library partners; school libraries; special libraries) both within our region and outside geographic borders. To ensure a stable future for existing library programs and services, and to embrace newer, more costly technologies, partnership ventures and cost-sharing methods among all types of libraries becomes less a privilege and more of a necessity.
"Librarianship is characterized by cooperative practice and joint scholarship. Libraries are able to serve their constituencies only through the existence and activities of a variety of cooperative entities, such as bibliographic networks, authority control cooperatives, interlibrary loan consortia, library automation groups, and professional associations. Leadership positions in automation consortia, collection development cooperatives, etc., have direct bearing on development of policy and practice for the field and direct impact on availability and usability of information by the academic community.." Janet Swan Hill, "Wearing Our Own Clothes: Librarians as Faculty," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 20:71-6 (May 1994).
Maintain contact with our client group:
Library advocacy begins and ends with the impressions made upon our client group. Intellectual contributions to the world of knowledge secure a place for library faculty in academia. We garner respect not only for daily library services provided, but also for our involvement in scholarly pursuits. That leverage is essential in fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect.
"How much better is combating this image of passive, docile inactivity to have proof of knowledge of methods of scholarly investigation and an image that shows dynamic organization and leadership developed through a record of research and publication. Whether such publication occurs in the field of librarianship or in the subject field in which the librarian chooses to work, this knowledge of research methods will translate in to better service to the other scholarly users of the library." Dale S. Montanelli and Patricia F. Stenstrom, "The Benefits of Research for Academic Librarians and the Institutions They Serve," College & Research Libraries 47:482-5 (September 1986).
4. Initiatives that should be considered in connection to, coordinated with, or that may overlap this initiative include:
IRG #1. Analyze needs of users and develop services/technical infrastructure for needs to be met.
This could turn out to be a very creative process. Documentation of the efforts, and the results, particularly if they improve services both quantitatively and qualitatively, would be of broader professional interest.
IRG #2. Evaluate effectiveness of existing library programs.
These evaluations could turn into collaborative scholarship activities for teams or groups of people.
IRG #11. Develop and document a comprehensive plan for data collection and analysis.
With input from persons experienced in data collection and analysis, we anticipate that many areas of data collection that could be used in a variety of scholarly activities, including use studies.
IRG #16. Staff training and development
Several comments mentioned the desire of some staff members to be involved in scholarship. Although it is secondary to job performance, one survey response suggested that the opportunity could engage individuals whose "job otherwise seems to be moving large amounts of material from one place to another."
Wouldn't it be good to emphasize the potential of all initiatives in a scholarly effort and encourage involvement from all persons willing?
5. Initiatives or considerations lacking from those delineated:
Staff scholarship, if it would be a separate initiative. Information literacy, if it becomes a separate further initiative.
6. Members to be continued, added or deleted for the Initiative Planning Team:
The continuing and incoming members of the Faculty Concerns Committee will be essential to the Initiative Planning Team. Betty Austin has indicated an interest in continuing on the Planning Team, as has Necia Parker-Gibson.
7. The amount of time required to develop the plan for implementing the initiative:
Our best estimate is six months to a year from whenever they were allowed to start, relative to the most critical initiatives and depending on the plan and the press of other work.
8. Priority Level, within the Library's mission and goals?
The priority level in the three to five year planning phase is considered to be Level 2, since it is a retention issue- assistance in scholarship must be a priority to aid our several new faculty members and to augment the scholarship and address the potential of our tenured faculty.
Background
The Association of College and Research Libraries publishes "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians" (2001). The relevant ones for scholarship are as follows:
Leaves. Sabbatical and other research leaves should be available to librarians consistent with campus standards.
Research and development funds. Librarians should have access to funding for research projects and professional development consistent with campus standards.
Academic freedom. Librarians must have the same protection of academic freedom as all other faculty. Censorship of any type is unacceptable whether individual or organizational. All librarians must be free to provide access to information regardless of content.
Weller, Hurd, and Wiberly (1999) report on their authorship study of 32 peer-reviewed library and information science journals published in the United States and Canada for the years 1993-1997. The authors examined these journals to determine how many peer-reviewed articles were written by practicing academic librarians in the United States, and of 3,624 total articles, they discovered that 1,579 or 43.6 percent were written by at least one academic librarian. They also learned that 869 (55 percent) of the articles had single authors and 710 (45 percent) were written by two or more authors; furthermore, of the 710 articles with co-authors, 260 (36.6 percent) demonstrated collaboration with authors in other campus units or other institutions.
Broken down by institutional affiliation, the twenty schools that produced the most academic librarian authors were (with one exception) either ARL member or Research I institutions. Indeed, 95 percent of all institutions represented were ARL libraries, and 80 percent were Research I institutions.
Joswick (1999) examined article publication patterns of Illinois academic librarians between 1995 and January 1999. The following characteristics emerged from her study:
It finds that women are publishing close to their numbers in the profession, that more articles are being written collaboratively than in the past, and that women are more likely to collaborate than men. It also shows that librarians publish primarily in library/information science journals and that librarians at large universities are more likely to publish than librarians at small colleges. (p. 340)
Faculty status is a norm at many ARL institutions, but it is by no means universal. SPEC Kit 261 (2000) reports on a survey of 121 ARL member libraries. Of the 55 respondents, 25 percent indicated that librarians had tenure-track appointments, 25 percent had a system of continuing appointments, 7 percent had a combination of tenure track and continuing appointments, and 42 percent indicated that librarians at their institution did not have either a tenure track or a system of continuing appointments. (p. 11)
Defining Scholarship
SPEC Kit 182 (1992) describes a survey of 107 ARL libraries. There were 99 respondents, and of these, 35 libraries replied that they had faculty status and were eligible for tenure. The introduction to the SPEC Kit includes these statements:
Documents describing criteria for tenure submitted by 21 of the 35 libraries [reporting faculty status] show a range of emphases, but a great deal of similarity in the lists of activities and standards used for evaluation. Most library tenure programs review three areas of performance: the practice of librarianship, research/publications, and service. There is, however, a wide variance in the weights applied to these components. Sixteen libraries apparently weigh each component equally; 19 state explicitly that excellence in librarianship as [sic] the primary factor; 5 do not require research and publication; 2 require and advanced degree beyond the MLS; and 3 have only general language, such as, librarians "must be subject to standards governing promotion and tenure that reflect their identity." Some state explicitly that the most important factor in evaluating a librarian for tenure is excellence in librarianship. In these instances, research and publication are given less weight; that is, excellence in research alone would not be an acceptable substitute for excellence in librarianship as a performance requirement.
At those institutions where research and publication are required, the amount necessary for tenure is usually not set. Only a few quantify criteria, as in "at least two or three substantial articles," "one book," or "four reviews." Most also require that the research and publication be in topics related to libraries and information science; only two libraries permit research in other topics to be counted toward tenure. The types of documentation required to support tenure or promotion range from simple narrative statements to detailed lists. Some also provide definitions of "superior performance," or "excellence." (Flyer 182, p. [1])
With regard to the requirement for scholarly/creative activities and the weight assigned to this aspect of a faculty librarian's responsibilities, the University Libraries document thus appears to be in line with that of many ARL libraries.
A recurring issue for the University Libraries is agreement about what types of activities constitute scholarship for faculty librarians. Our personnel document allows for a great variety in this area, as do some of the personnel documents featured in SPEC Kit 261 (2000). An example is this statement from Colorado State University:
Activities encompassed by the term "Research and Creative Activity" include, but are not limited to: conducting research and engaging in other scholarly activity that may result in published work and that benefits librarianship or scholarship in any discipline. Contributions include, but are not limited to: books, monographs, articles in journals, chapters in books, essays in encyclopedias, papers in proceedings, position papers, technical reports, abstracts, book reviews and reviews of creative activities; developing and introducing significant innovations with respect to library collections, services or methods; receiving grant or contract funds, research awards, fellowships and scholarships; editing journals or performing other editorial work of a scholarly nature; presenting papers at international, national, regional, state or local conferences and meetings; producing creative work related to the discipline or specialty, such as films, tapes, exhibits, reports, compositions, audiovisual material, computer programs, and/or web pages; actively pursuing academic degrees additional to the terminal degree. (p. 54)
SPEC Kit 182 (1992) also provides excerpts from other personnel documents. Many of the lists of acceptable scholarly and creative activities found there are similar to ours, including those from University of Alabama (p. 9), University of Cincinnati (p. 49), University of Colorado, Boulder (p. 53-54), Colorado State University (p. 74), Louisiana State University (p. 106-7), and Washington State University (p. 161-62). However, it should be noted that most of the above documents are now older than 10 years.
Another definition of scholarship comes from the work of Ernest Boyer and others. In its report Academic Librarianship and the Redefining Scholarship Project, the Association of College and Research Libraries made the following statement:
In 'Making a Place for the New American Scholar,' Eugene Rice describes Ernest Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate as having 'called on faculty to move beyond the tired old "teaching vs. research" debate ... What moves to the foreground is the scholarly work of faculty, whether they are engaged in the advancing of knowledge in a field, integrating knowledge through the challenging intellectual work involved in teaching and facilitating learning, or applying knowledge to a compelling problem in the community.' These four types, which we shall call inquiry, integration, teaching, and application, provide a framework for considering how the activities of academic librarians may fit into the broader, more complete understanding of what constitutes academic work. (pp. 2-3)
The report goes on to discuss how the work of academic librarians does indeed fit into the four categories mentioned above, stating:
... by using the taxonomy of Rice and Boyer it becomes clear that while the teaching of librarians is different from that done by most other faculty, many of the primary faculty roles of librarians, roles which they perform on a daily basis and which in a promotion and tenure document for librarians are usually and appropriately found in the performance category labeled 'Librarianship,' are in fact scholarly in nature. (p. 3)
The following is a Boyer-like personnel document statement from Iowa State University:
Scholarship is creative, systematic, rational inquiry into a topic and the honest, forthright application or exposition of conclusions drawn from that inquiry. It builds on existing knowledge and employs critical analysis and judgment to enhance understanding. Scholarship is the umbrella under which research falls, but research is just one form of scholarship. Scholarship also encompasses creative activities, teaching, and extension/professional practice. Scholarship results in a product that is shared with others and is subject to the criticism of individuals qualified to judge the product. This product may take the form of a book, journal article, critical review, annotated bibliography, lecture, review of existing research on a topic, or speech synthesizing the thinking on a topic. Also falling under the umbrella of scholarship are original materials designed for use with the computer; inventions on which patents are obtained; codes and standards; art exhibits by teacher-artists; musical concerts with original scores; novels essays, short stories, poems; and scholarly articles published in non-research based periodicals, newspapers, and other publications; etc. In short, scholarship includes materials that are generally called "intellectual property." (SPEC Kit 261, p. 56)
Lawson and Pelzer (1999) examined the issue of how technology-based products such as computer software, articles in electronic journals, and Web materials are evaluated for tenure and promotion purposes. After their survey of administrators at 69 ARL academic libraries, they concluded that "ARL academic librarians recognize that technology-based projects are valuable and should be seriously considered in promotion and/or tenure reviews, but that there has been little initiative to regularize its consideration and evaluation." (p. 474-75)
However, their survey results also elicited the following words of caution:
It is clear that there is an additional burden involved for librarians who produce technology-based projects and include them in promotion and/or tenure files. Because review committees and administrators currently lack a depth of experience in evaluating these projects, the author must take the initiative in providing as much documentation of the project as possible. (p. 473)
Watson-Boone (2000) discusses the role of academic librarians as "practitioner-researchers." She states:
Practitioner-researchers are not content to solve problems by solely using the informal and practical knowledge they have gained from within their jobs. Instead, they approach projects and problems in ways that yield (1) solutions, (2) an enlarged understanding of their actual field of work-their practice-, and (3) improvements in that practice. (p. 85)
The author reviewed 24 research-based articles published by academic practitioners in the Journal of Academic Librarianship during the years 1985-1995. From the various projects represented, she identified six practice-based research methodologies: action research, case study research, evaluation research, experimental research, secondary data analysis, and the most common method, survey research. She further identified seven steps common to practitioner research. These are:
1.Identify the true problem that needs attention;
2.Define various ways to solve the problem;
3.Select the process that appears to have the greatest chance of working;
4.Set out criteria against which to measure the success of the specific problem solving efforts;
5.Carry out the effort;
6.Evaluate what occurs;
7.Reflect on whether the results have solved the problem satisfactorily(p. 90)
Supporting Scholarship Efforts
The professional literature of the last five years contains several articles about the issues of librarian scholarship and faculty status in general. Some of these are discussed below.
Sprang and Kane (1997) state: "During the past ten years, as demonstrated by increasing coverage in the professional literature, scholarship and governance have emerged as the two most troublesome aspects of faculty status for librarians." (p. 447) Based on their literature review, the authors go on to cite all the following as obstacles to librarian scholarship:
"lack of commitment to research and publication"
provision to librarians of the amount of release time needed for scholarship has proven to be "nearly insurmountable"
structure of librarians' work environment
expense, in that librarian scholarship exacts a 9 percent cost in teaching faculty research production due to lost librarian service time
a weak research base
library schools do not teach research methods
The authors then describe their survey of 201 academic librarians (75 unionized and 126 unaffiliated) about their overall satisfaction with scholarship and governance opportunities at their respective institutions. In terms of scholarship, participants were asked specifically about tuition reimbursement, professional development opportunities, sabbaticals and professional leaves, and travel support. Respondents fell into one of four status categories-those with faculty status and faculty titles; those with faculty status and librarian titles; those classified as professional /administrative staff; and those with "other" status. While the responses varied among the four groups, the authors ultimately concluded that unionized or not, "none of these four groups uniformly reported adequate scholarship and governance support according to current [ACRL] standards." (p. 459)
Ochai and Nedosa (1998) examine causes for the relatively low level of publication output for academic librarians when compared with teaching faculty. They conclude that lack of educational preparation in research and statistical methods is at the root of the problem, and not such factors as inflexible work hours, lack of time, service ethic, and heavy workload. Two possible strategies for overcoming this problem are obtaining subject masters or doctorate degrees and intra- or inter-disciplinary collaboration on research projects.
Hart (1999) begins with the hypothesis that increasing tenure demands on academic librarians have resulted in a corresponding increase in both the quantity and quality of publications produced by them in recent years. A survey of librarians at his home institution of Penn State-where the atmosphere is one of "publish or perish"-bears out his original assumption, particularly in the area of refereed journal articles.
Hart also discovered that librarians at Penn State spend on average 19.8 hours per month on research, and that fully 12 percent spend more than 30 hours per month. Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that the Weller, Hurd, and Wiberly study (1999) found that Penn State was at the top of the list of most productive libraries for scholarship. (p. 358)
Mitchell and Reichel (1999) posed the question "Is there evidence that librarians with faculty status will be less likely to meet tenure requirements than other faculty?" (p. 232) They surveyed library directors at 690 research, doctoral, and master's-level institutions, and 374 of them employ tenure-track librarians. Of that number, 60.9 percent require some evidence of scholarship for tenure, and another 34.6 percent encourage it. Furthermore, 92.2 percent of the librarians who underwent tenure review in the years 1995-1998 were successful.
The literature also offers some specific strategies for supporting scholarship efforts. These include:
Co-authorship
Hart (2000a) surveyed the library literature and the various co-authors who published articles in College & Research Libraries and the Journal of Academic Librarianship in the years 1997-1998. He concluded that benefits of co-authorship included: improved quality (and therefore greater chance for publication), means of increasing publishing output, compensation for skills and expertise one or the other lacks, division of labor, means of fighting academic isolation, intellectual stimulation, mentoring or getting to know a colleague, and a way to increase motivation and follow-through.
Hart (2000b) also surveyed his academic library colleagues at Penn State about the extent and nature of their collaborative publishing efforts, as well as the perceived benefits. He found that of the survey participants, 81.3 percent had served as the co-author of a scholarly publication, and 40.6 percent indicated they were currently working on a project that they expected to lead to a co-authored publication. The benefits listed by the participants are much the same as those enumerated in Hart (2000a).
The author also discovered that the overall rate of multiple-authored articles for Penn State librarians was 27 percent of their total output. Moreover, when broken down by journal type-non-refereed, refereed, and core library/information science journal-the rate of collaboration increased as the quality of the type of journal increased. That is, nearly 90 percent of the non-refereed journal articles had single authors, while for refereed journals the ratio of single-authored articles to multiple-authored articles was about 2:1, and for core journals it was nearly 1:1.
Support Groups
Miller and Benefiel (1998) report on the use of a Tenure Support Group at Texas A & M. The group's members are predominantly untenured librarians, and participation is recommended though not mandatory. Tenured faculty are welcome to attend meetings and are often invited to speak. The authors state:
The role of the Tenure Support Group is to provide: emotional support for faculty members currently on the tenure track; a forum to share practical ideas, discuss the resources of the institution, and positive strategies for success in the quest for tenure; speakers and information concerning the tenure process; an opportunity for people to share current projects and to meet others who might be interested in either collaborating on projects or proofreading others' work; an opportunity to get a critical "first read" of works; and an opportunity to share "triumphs." (p. 262-63)
Cox, Landry, and Kwak (1999) discuss the formation of a similar Professional Advancement Group at Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana. This group of tenured and nontenured librarians performs a number of functions:
... the group shares tenure experience, supports grant writing and publishing, and provides a sounding board for ideas. Whenever someone needs critiques, ideas, or basic help, the group is there to offer suggestions and support. This format is designed to help new librarians understand the tenure process, to support librarians going for tenure, and to inspire tenured librarians to continue in professional growth.
The group meets one Friday a month after the library closes (allows attendance without worry about public service schedules), and those wishing to share manuscripts or grant proposals distribute copies to members ahead of time. The authors found that the presence of tenured librarians was invaluable for sharing insights into the tenure process, providing examples of the type and level of work required, and serving as scholarship models and mentors.
Starting Small
In their article "Tips for New Librarians: What to Know in the First Year of a Tenure-Track Position," Shontz and Bullington (1998) suggest that new professionals can get started by developing research interests and ideas. They can also write book reviews and short articles for newsletters or non-refereed journals, perhaps reporting on a program or event at a conference. Compiling bibliographies is a final possibility mentioned by the authors.
Bibliography
Association of College and Research Libraries. Committee on the Status of Academic Librarians. 2001. "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians." College & Research Libraries News 62, no. 3 (March): 304-6.
Association of College and Research Libraries. Task Force on Institutional Priorities and Faculty Rewards. 1998. Academic Librarianship and the Redefining Scholarship Project. Chicago, Ill.: The Association.
Association of Research Libraries. 1992. Office of Management Services. Academic Status for Librarians in ARL Libraries. SPEC Kit 182. Washington, D.C.: The Association.
Cox, Linda Newman, Abbie V. Landry, and Gail Kwak. 1999. "Less Terror in Tenure: The Professional Advancement Group." LLA Bulletin 61, no. 4 (Spring): 233-38.
Hart, Richard L. 2000a. "Co-Authorship in the Academic Library Literature: A Survey of Attitudes and Behaviors." Journal of Academic Librarianship 26, no. 5 (September): 339-45.
Hart, Richard L. 2000b. "Collaborative Publication by University Librarians: An Exploratory Study." Journal of Academic Librarianship 26, no. 2 (March): 94-99.
Hart, Richard L. 1999. "Scholarly Publication by University Librarians: A Study at Penn State." College & Research Libraries 60, no. 5 (September): 454-62.
Hook, Sara Anne, N. Doug Lee, and Gerald Powers, comps. 2000. Post Tenure Review. SPEC Kit 261. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries.
Joswick, Kathleen E. 1999. "Article Publication Patterns of Academic Librarians: An Illinois Case Study." College & Research Libraries 60, no. 4 (July): 340-49.
Lawson, Karen G., and Nancy L. Pelzer. 1999. "Assessing Technology-Based Projects for Promotion and/or Tenure in ARL Academic Libraries." College & Research Libraries 60, no. 5 (September): 464-76.
Miller, Jeannie P., and Candace R. Benefiel. 1998. "Academic Librarians and the Pursuit of Tenure: The Support Group as a Strategy for Success." College & Research Libraries 59, no. 3 (May): 260-65.
Mitchell, W. Bede, and Mary Reichel. 1999. "Publish or Perish: A Dilemma for Academic Librarians?" College & Research Libraries 60, no.3 (May): 232-43.
Ochai, Adakole, and Peter S. Nedosa. 1998. "Publications Output of Librarians: The Search for Alternative Justification." African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science 8, no. 2 (October): 89-96.
Shontz, Priscilla K., and Jeffrey S. Bullington. 1998. "Tips for New Librarians: What to Know in the First Year of a Tenure-Track Position." College & Research Libraries News 59, no. 2 (February): 85-88.
Sprang, Lothar, and William P. Kane. 1997. "Who Speaks for Academic Librarians? Status and Satisfaction Comparisons between Unaffiliated and Unionized Librarians on Scholarship and Governance Issues." College & Research Libraries 58, no. 5 (September): 446-62.
Watson-Boone, Rebecca. 2000. "Academic Librarians as Practitioner-Researchers." Journal of Academic Librarianship 26, no. 2 (March): 85-93.
Weller, Ann C., Julie M. Hurd, and Stephen E. Wiberley, Jr. 1999. "Publication Patterns of U.S. Academic Librarians from 1993 to 1997." College & Research Libraries 60, no. 4 (July): 352-62.
