ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 414 / C&RL News A CRL Guidelines The red efin in g scho larship p ro ject: A d raft rep o rt By th e ACRL In stitu tio n al P rio rities a n d Facu lty Rew ards Task F o rc e Please review this report a n d send yo u r comments to the Task Force A t the July 1996 ALA Annual Conference the ACRL Board of Directors appointed a task force to write a formal statement defin­ ing and describing the kind of scholarship per­ formed by academic librarians, using as a frame­ work the taxonomy developed by Eugene Rice and elaborated by Ernest Boyer in his 1990 book S ch ola rsh ip R econ sid ere d : P riorities o f th e P ro­ fe s s o r ia t e .1 The task force’s statement, upon ap­ proval by the ACRL Board, is intended to b e­ come part o f a larger movement established by Syracuse University’s Center for Instructional Development, entitled the Institutional Priori­ ties and Faculty Rewards project. The project, which is being funded by the Lilly Endowment with support from the Fund for the Improve­ ment o f Postsecondary Education, is providing assistance to academic associations for the de­ velopment and dissemination of definitions of scholarship for their disciplines. The definitions are intended to extend the range o f activities recognized as scholarly for the purposes of ten­ ure, promotion, merit, or reward system guide­ lines. The following is the report of the ACRL task force. B ackg ro u n d inform ation The movement to gain faculty status for Ameri­ can academic librarians that began in the 19th century celebrated a major milestone when ACRL adopted the “Standards for Faculty Sta­ tus for C ollege and University Librarians” in 1971. The Standards were intended to de­ fine and describe the rights and responsibili­ ties which ACRL believed should be exercised by librarians at American colleges and univer­ sities. However, in spite of the fact that some form o f faculty status has been instituted for librarians at many postsecondary institutions and endorsed by organizations such as the American Association of University Professors, the debate over the appropriateness o f faculty status within the academic library profession has not abated. One o f the most persistent ob­ jections to faculty status for librarians has been that the research that is expected o f most fac­ ulty should not be required o f librarians, for it is not a normal part o f librarians’ daily respon­ sibilities. Many have argued that academic li­ brarians, as practitioners o f an applied field, are not engaged in the kind o f scholarship that faculty must perform in order to earn promo­ tion and tenure. Efforts to demonstrate that much of what librarians do is scholarly or “like what other faculty do” were criticized as at­ tempts to force square pegs into round holes. It was further contended that if librarians were made to carry out research agendas to meet prom otion and tenure criteria, such efforts would divert the librarians’ energies from pro­ viding quality library services. But with a new and growing awareness in academia that the traditional conception of scholarship may have been too narrow, the issue o f what, if anything, constitutes scholarship done by academic librar­ ians may be considered in a new light. In M a kin g a P la c e f o r th e New A m er ic a n S ch o la r, Eugene Rice describes Boyer’s S ch ol­ a r s h ip R e c o n s id e r e d as having “called on fac­ ulty to move beyond the tired old ‘teaching vs. research’ debate. … What moves to the fore­ ACRL’s Institutional Priorities a n d Faculty Rewards Task Force is chaired by W. Bede Mitchell, associate university librarian at Appalachian State University; e-mail: mitchellwb@appstate.edu. Members are: Rush Miller, University o f Pittsburgh; Gloriana St. Clair, Penn State University; Larry Oberg, Willamette University; Carol Parks, Syracuse University; Brian Kelley, Palm Beach Community College; a n d Althea Jenkins, ACRL. mailto:mitchellwb@appstate.edu Ju n e 1 9 9 7 / 415 ground is the scholarly work of faculty, whether they are engaged in the advancing o f knowl­ edge in a field, integrating knowledge through the structuring o f a curriculum, transforming knowledge through the challenging intellec­ tual work involved in teaching and facilitating learning, or applying knowledge to a compel­ ling problem in the community.”2 These four types of scholarship— 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 consti­ tutes academic work. Such a re-examination is very timely in light of the similar efforts being carried out in the Institutional Priorities and Fac­ ulty Rewards project by dozens of other profes­ sional associations on behalf of their academic disciplines. The next section of this report con­ siders the primary activities of academic librar­ ians as they relate to the different categories of scholarship and other faculty responsibilities. The roles of acad em ic lib raria n s The roles of faculty members are usually con­ sidered to fall into three categories: teaching, scholarship, and service to the institution and profession. Efforts to place the activities of li­ brarians into these categories have not been problematic as far as service was concerned, since academic librarians are committed to the strengthening of their profession through for­ mal associations and other activities, while ser­ vice on campus benefits the librarians as well as the institution by virtue o f the librarians’ participation in the planning and decision-mak ing process. Where difficulties have been en­ countered are in the categories o f scholarship (because of the objections described above) and teaching, where attempts to equate responsi­ bilities such as reference, cataloging, and col­ lection development with classroom instruction have been met with skepticism. However, by using the taxonomy o f Rice and Boyer it be­ comes clear that while the teaching of librar­ ians 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— are in fact scholarly in nature. T ea ch in g The teaching that is most characteristic of aca­ demic librarianship involves instructing people in becoming independent scholars who can find, assess, and use information resources ef­ fectively. ACRL’s “Model Statement of O bjec­ tives for Academic Bibliographic Instruction” recommends the following general objectives for a bibliographic instruction program: • the student will understand how in­ formation is defined by experts, and recog­ nize how that knowledge can help deter­ mine the direction o f his/her search for specific information; • the student will understand the im­ portance of the organizational content, bib­ liographic structure, function, and use of in­ formation sources; • the student will be able to identify useful information from information sources or information systems; • the student will be able to understand the way collections of information sources are physically organized and accessed.3 Librarians teach users to plan and carry out search strategies appropriate to given needs, and to evaluate the extent to which various texts and databases may be considered authori­ tative and up-to-date. Librarians teach these skills in a variety of ways; most commonly, instruction is delivered as librarians serve individuals at the reference desk or meet with classes as guest lecturers. At many institutions librarians conduct for-credit bibliographic instruction classes that last the entire academic term and teach library research skills in depth. Other effective means of teach­ ing library skills include term paper clinics, workshops on electronic information retrieval skills, and extended reference consultation with students, faculty, and other library users. Just Comments sought The ACRL Institutional Priorities and Fac­ ulty Rewards Task Force is seeking com­ ments and suggestions regarding this draft of its report to the ACRL Board of Directors. A hearing is scheduled from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 29, at the ALA Annual Conference in San Francisco. Comments may also be sent prior to the hearing to Task Force chair W. B ede Mitchell, Associate University Librarian, Belk Library, Appala­ chian State University, Boone, NC 28608; MITCHELLWB@APPSTATE.EDU. mailto:MITCHELLWB@APPSTATE.EDU 4 1 6 / C&RL News as with other kinds o f library skill teaching, research consultation involves a considered judgment about a patron’s educational back­ ground and capabilities, and an understanding o f the relative intellectual merits of the library’s resources. S c h o la r s h ip As previously noted, a major proportion of the work done by librarians qualifies as scholar­ ship. A. I n q u i r y . Librarians engage in the schol­ arship of inquiry when they seek to answer such questions as: • What are the most efficient and effective means of organizing information and retriev­ ing it when it is sought? • How can we determine and meet a user’s true information need when research has shown that a sizable proportion of all users are not able to articulate their needs clearly and com ­ pletely? • How do we ensure that library collec­ tions and services are contributing substantially to the educational goals of our institutions? • What information resources should we be providing to our unique set of patrons? • Which media are most effective for the specific kinds of information preservation and use needs that we have? • How can we construct Web pages and other tools that help students and faculty navi­ gate “cyberspace” effectively? There is a vast set of more specific research questions which attempt to address smaller, more manageable aspects of the above ques­ tions, but the foregoing is evidence that there is a formidable agenda for extending the knowl­ edge base of librarianship. B. In tegration . Academic librarianship has drawn upon a wide range of other disciplines for knowledge that informs and transforms li­ brary work. The considerable extent to which academic librarians integrate knowledge from other fields makes for a highly interdisciplinary profession. Examples of the integration of knowledge from other fields into the scholarship and prac­ tice of librarianship include: • drawing upon learning theory in order to design effective instruction; • employing communication theory to im­ prove the reference interview and establish sound communication throughout the library organization; • applying the findings of ergonomic stud­ ies to the design o f space for library users and personnel that will be conducive to human work and comfort; • protecting for future generations of schol­ ars the library’s collections from environmen­ tal and usage-imposed dangers by means of preservation techniques; • assisting users by interpreting and ana­ lyzing the com ponents o f their information needs and helping construct efficient and com­ prehensive research strategies, which often re­ quires a thorough knowledge of the literature o f several disciplines; • integrating administrative and manage­ ment techniques into the operation of a com ­ plex service organization; • advising fellow faculty about the con­ straints of copyright and the allowances for edu­ cational fair use of copyrighted materials in print and multimedia formats. C. Teaching. The scholarship of teaching involves developing, testing, and improving pedagogical techniques for meeting the instruc­ tion objectives described in B .1. above, and communicating to peers the results of testing the techniques. D. Application. As a service profession, aca­ demic librarianship applies the theory and knowledge gained through inquiry, integration, and pedagogical experimentation to meeting the research and learning needs of the academic community. By employing the results of the scholarship exemplified in the foregoing sec­ tions, academic librarians attempt to improve and refine their processes and programs. S e r v ic e Academic librarians are heavily involved in ser­ vice to their academic institution, profession, and to the general public in the form of out­ reach. Service activities benefit both the librar­ ians— increasing their ability to design and man­ a g e r e s p o n s iv e and e f f e c tiv e lib ra ry services— and the groups to which they con­ tribute. By participating in institutional plan­ ning and decision-making, librarians are better able to ensure that library goals, services, and collections reflect and support the institutional mission and priorities. The scope and charac­ ter of library resources are essential compo­ nents in delivering quality education, and in­ stitutional service enables librarians to manage those resources effectively as a result of a thor­ ough understanding of the institution’s curricu- J u n e 1 9 9 7 / 417 lar goals and requirements, teaching methods, faculty research interests, and student learning abilities and styles. Professional and outreach service activities are the means by which librarians attem pt to serve their clientele by influencing information policy development, the research into improved preservation techniques, information science research, and the developm ent and application of information technology. This often includes identifying and collabo­ rating with strategic partners and allies such as national and local governments and industries and nonprofit organizations concerned with information policy and technology. Professional library organizations are also instrumental in setting standards for information organization, delivery, and preservation. In outreach service, librarians apply their expertise to situations outside of the academy, and educate the lay public on issues relating to access to informa­ tion. The importance of academic librarians’ ser­ vice activities to the library, institution, and greater community typically calls for such ac­ tivities to be valued highly in perform ance re­ views. Service in academic librarianship includes but is not limited to: • Institu tio n al service— p a rticip atio n in committees, councils, task forces, the faculty governance body; participation in institutional activities such as colloquia and seminars; fund­ raising on behalf of the institution or library. • Professional service—serving as an of­ ficer in professional organizations; participat­ ing in committees, councils, accrediting b o d ­ ies, or task forces; editing a scholarly journal; refereeing competitive paper sessions or schol­ arly articles subm itted for publication; serving as reviewer of new publications for professional journals; reviewing grant proposals. • O utreach service—sharing professional expertise with parties outside the institution, such as serving as a consultant or writing for lay audiences on subjects related to librarian ship, intellectual freedom, and censorship. As other associations have found w hen at­ tempting to apply the Rice/Boyer taxonom y of scholarship to their ow n disciplines, there can be som e overlap am ong the various categories w hich results in occasional uncertainty over how a certain faculty activity ought to be clas­ sified. However, as the Association of Ameri­ can G eographers (AAG) wrote: General definitions will rem ain arguable and imprecise, but each institution should have little difficulty form ulating its ow n appropriate conceptualizations, assum ing it has clearly articulated m issions. Such imprecision and variations do not gainsay the validity of this or any other general schema, or the roles they attempt to encap­ sulate. … [The various categories]—w hat­ ever the fuzziness o f their boundaries gen­ erally and locally— inform and enrich each other. They form a continuum of creative and pedagogical activities that differ less in content and m o d e than in the locations w here they play out and in the clienteles they address.4 Conclusions a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n s Although it is all too com m on that we speak as if postsecondary educational institutions were identical in their aims and goals, the fact is that the missions of some colleges and universities em phasize research m uch more than do other institutions. Even within this dualistic picture there are varying degrees o f value placed on the different performance categories. It is there­ fore to be expected that rew ard structures will differ according to institutional missions. It is natural that departm ents of chemistry or phi­ losophy at research universities might focus on developing outstanding programs of scholarly inquiry while their counterparts at liberal arts or community colleges would concentrate much more on teaching and service. However, the basic functions and responsibilities of academic librarians for ensuring high-quality library ser­ vices will vary m uch less am ong institutions with differing missions. In light of that, w e rec­ om m end that institutions should develop re­ w ard structures for academic librarians that rec­ ognize and encourage their roles as articulated in the foregoing, w hether the librarians have faculty status or not. The rew ard structures and criteria for as­ sessing perform ance should be clearly docu­ m ented and shared with academic librarians. The extent to w hich different weights are given to each perform ance category should be re­ lated to the institutional mission and library goals. As an example, a land-grant university’s emphasis on outreach might lead to its valuing service by the librarians to an even higher de­ gree than service may be valued at other insti­ tutions. Similarly, som e institutions will place a high value on the publication or presentation 418 / C&RL News of academic librarian scholarship, while others will expect librarians to engage in scholarship but not necessarily write for publication. W here librarians are expected to share their scholarship through books, refereed articles, presentations, etc., it is essential that the insti­ tutions take into account the fact that librarian “contact hours” are usually 35 to 40 hours per week, not the 12 to 24 that instructional faculty may have through classes and office hours. On one hand, it is critically important to both the quality of library services and to the efforts of librarians to publish their scholarship that suf­ ficient time and resources be available to allow for scholarly writing without having a deleteri­ ous effect on library service. On the other hand, w here librarians are not required to write for publication it is expected that they should show evidence of having applied continual critical professional judgment in staying abreast of and applying the latest trends and know ledge in their areas of expertise. It should also be noted that different indi­ viduals make different kinds of contributions to the success of a program. Performance criteria and reward structures should enable librarians to contribute in the ways that best utilize their individual talents, which should in turn assure that the overall goals of the library are achieved. Finally, as is noted in the Association of American Geographers’ statement on behalf of their discipline, present reward structures usu­ ally focus almost exclusively on individualistic conceptions of faculty work. The AAG believes that collaborative efforts such as instructional teams may becom e more com m on in geogra­ phy as their utility is demonstrated. This strikes Interested in shaping the future of ACRL? ACRL is looking for participants for its mem ber services focus group at the ALA An­ nual Conference in San Francisco this month. Directed at collecting information that will help im prove services an d program s to members, the one-hour meeting will take place on Monday, June 30, 10:00– 11:00 a.m. We invite you to participate by sending an e-mail m essage to ACRL at ACRL@ala.org by June 20 saying that you will participate in the focus group. a chord with academic librarians, not only b e­ cause so m uch o f their w ork is carried out through the collaborative w ork of professional service (e.g., setting standards for the discipline, influencing public policy) but also because so much of w hat librarians do is interdependent. As Janet Swan Hill described the situation: In librarianship, som e activities may be in­ dividually attributable, but most are not. For instance, a cataloger may prepare a biblio­ graphic record for an item, but the individual work must be absorbed successfully into the catalog, and the highest quality w ork stands out least. Even activities that seem to be individually attributable may not be. For ex­ ample, a reference librarian w ho is unable to find a useful information resource may ow e that inability to a bibliographer who did not request it, an acquisitions librarian w ho could not identify it, a cataloger who did not analyze it fully, or a system vendor w ho failed to resolve a programming bug.5 Thus the cooperative nature o f the field of aca­ demic librarianship is already such that w e join the AAG in recom m ending that higher educa­ tion institutions seek means of recognizing and rewarding collaborative accomplishments rather than continuing to focus solely on individualis­ tic conceptions of faculty work. N otes 1. Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities o f the Professoriate (Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990). 2. R. Eugene Rice, Making a Place fo r the New American Scholar, American Assoc. for Higher Education Working Paper No. 1 (1996). 3. ACRL/BIS Task Force on Model Statement of Objectives, “Model Statement of Objectives for Academic Bibliographic Instruction: Draft Revision,” C&RL News AS (May 1987): 256–61. 4. Association o f American G eographers, “Toward a Reconsideration of Faculty Roles and Rewards in G eography,” in Robert M. Diamond a n d B ronw yn Adam, ed s., The Disciplines Speak: Rewarding the Scholarly, Professional, a n d Creative Work o f Faculty (W ashington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Educa­ tion), 35–47. 5. J a n e t Swan Hill, “W earing O ur O w n Clothes: Librarians As Faculty,” Journal o f Aca­ demic Librarianship 20 (May 1994) 71–76. ■ mailto:ACRL@ala.org J u n e 1 9 9 7 / 419