College and Research Libraries PRISCILLA GEAHIGAN, HARRIET NELSON, STEW ART SAUNDERS, AND LA WHENCE WOODS Acceptability of Non-Library/Information Science Publications in the Promotion and Tenure of Academic Librarians If library/information science is a true academic discipline, then academic librarians must reevaluate the acceptability of publications in other fields if they are to be considered academic faculty members in the field of library/ information science. This was perceived to be the issue by the Purdue Univer- sity Library faculty when they altered the tenure and promotions document to require that consideration for promotion and tenure be based on publications in library/information science. The issue has been raised by the growing num- ber of librarians with non-library/information science Ph.D.s who prefer to publish in the area of their Ph.D. A survey of ARL libraries indicates, how- ever, that only a relative handful of academic libraries presently supports requirements similar to those adopted by the Purdue library faculty. DuRING A RECENT SURVEY of a university library faculty, a respondent stated, "The li- brarian is a true Renaissance Man." Herb White encountered a distinguished scholar- librarian who described libraries as being "self evidently good. " 1 Is it realistic to con- tinue to view our profession as a biblio- graphic Camelot in the light of the realities of the times? We have striven for acceptance by our academic colleagues by seeking faculty status for librarians. We have worked for sev- eral decades to define our area of activity as professional. How has our success enhanced Priscilla Geahigan is reference librarian, Kran- nert Management and Economics Library, Har- riet Nelson is senior reference librarian , General Library, Stewart Saunders is reference and liaison librarian, General Library, and Lawrence Woods is head of the Research and Development Unit, University Libraries, Purdue University, West La- fayette , Indiana. or detracted from the old concept of the li- brarian as a self-directed, cross-disciplinary scholar? · THE IssuE DEF1NED The library faculty of Purdue University adopted in 1978 a clarification of its promo- tion and tenure policy stating that publica- tions in· library/information science would be given more weight in promotion and tenure decisions than those in other scholarly fields. This issue arose when, in interviewing a can- didate for a position on the library faculty, she stated that she would only publish in En- glish literature, which was the area of her Ph.D. At that time the Purdue Libraries had no expli.cit policy covering this issue since it had never been raised before in hiring or pro- motion and tenure considerations. It was ap- parent, however, that the issue at stake was one of definition. What is the subject exper- tise of library/information science? I 571 572 I College & Research Libraries • November 1981 The issue having been raised, the director of libraries appointed a committee to study and make recommendations on a policy. The committee searched the literature and sur- veyed the opinion of the library faculty. The literature search revealed that there was no single article addressing this issue directly. At the next faculty meeting the committee re- ported and presented a resolution favoring stronger support to library and information science publications than to those in other fields. Enough discussion was generated that the report was tabled to permit further con- sideration by the faculty. It was clear that the library faculty was divided on the topic. Those faculty members ,who supported the resolution based their argument on the prop- osition that library and information science is a discipline in its own right. Consequently the librarian and information scientist ought to do research and publish in this field if he/ she is to advance the state of the discipline and comply to general norms for the faculty of an academic discipline. This argument was supported by references to other aca- demic disciplines where publication outside the area of one's academic appointment would be inappropriate. For example, a chemist would never gain tenure or promo- tion if he were to devote his research to Ar- thurian legend. Faculty members who opposed the resolu- tion based their objections on two similar but distinct arguments. In a philosophical vein, it was argued that the trend in modern research is toward an increase in interdisciplinary studies and that librarianship by its very na- ture is an interdisciplinary subject. There- fore, to impose restrictions on the scope of research done by librarians and information scientists would not only curtail academic freedom but would also be counter to the cur- rent direction in other disciplines. Echoing a similar sentiment at a more practical level, several library faculty members expressed the opinion that the everyday professional activi- ties of librarians bring them into contact with the entire realm of knowledge and that, un- like other disciplines, a broad working knowledge of many subject fields is essential for successful job performance. The same cri- teria of the relation of subject knowledge to job performance could be applied by the sub- ject specialist to his/her own peculiar role as the liaison between the library and the teach- ing faculty of a specific discipline. Given that subject knowledge is essential for many pro- fessional library positions, research in these subject areas, it was argued, should not be inappropriate to the tasks of librarianship. The opposition supported its argument with the example of a leading literary scholar who had published several critical bibliographies, implying that librarians should be rewarded for publishing literary history. Although the director of libraries made the point that he would find it difficult to justify to the university-wide promotion and tenure committee promotion and tenure for some- one who was publishing in something other than library and information science, this practical problem was never considered to be the real issue by either party in the debate. No pressure was being exerted by the university administration to make the librarians follow a particular course in research and publica- tion. Rather, the arguments centered on the more philosophical issue of library and infor- mation science as a unique discipline versus library and information science as a loose confederation of many other areas of knowl- edge. In the course of the debate it became ap- parent that a compromise opinion had formed among the library faculty. They agreed that library and information science was the library faculty's proper field of inves- tigation, but at the same time they wished to see the subject defined in the broadest possi- ble terms. Many suggestions were made to amend the original resolution in order to reach a compromise between the two op- posed philosophical views. Such suggestions usually amounted to examples of acceptable research, but it was soon realized that with- out a core definition of library and informa- tion science the examples could be strung out ad infinitum, and the library faculty was un- willing to commit itself to a core definition. In a spirit of compromise, a resolution was adopted that gave preponderate value to publications in the field of library and infor- mation science, but left the interpretation of what properly belonged to this field to the tenure and promotions committee. In practi- cal terms this meant that someone might pub- lish in a subject other than library science so long as he/she was careful to show its rele- vance to the concerns and issues of librarian- ship. The adopted resolution read: Since the field of library/information science/ audio-visual constitutes a discipline, most publica- tions should be related to the discipline in some way. The discipline should be interpreted broadly. Faculty members should strengthen their case by having as many good refereed publications in the discipline as possible. All publications in the discipline may be included · in consideration for promotion and tenure. Publications in scholarly fields not directly related to library/information science/audio-visual are ac- ceptable but may not be given primary consider- ation. No specific requirements should be established for the number and types of publications which are acceptable. REviEW OF THE LITERATURE The issue of whether publications in li- brary and information science should be given more weight than publications in other subject fields is complex, and one that has not been fully clarified in the resolution adopted by Purdue's library faculty. Some indication that such an issue might be important in the field can be gained by considering the grow- ing emphasis placed upon subject degrees as part of the qualifications of academic librar- ians. Miller's 1976 study of Ph.D.s in librari- anship2 found that of the 207 Ph.D.s holding professional positions in seventy-two large university libraries, 175 (84.5 percent) are subject Ph.D.s. His study likewise shows that the number of students who entered schools of library science with Ph.D.s in hand ap- proximately doubled between 1972 and 1974, and that there is a preference in the current job market for librarians with subject expertise at the Ph.D. level. Given the cur- rent emphasis upon the possession of subject matter expertise in librarianship, it may well be that a greater proportion of academic li- brarians are publishing, and desire to pub- lish, in their subject specialty. This is indi- cated in a recent study of publication patterns by librarians in ten university li- braries. Of the journal articles published in a five-year period by this group, 41 percent were published in nonlibrary journals. 3 How do other academic libraries deal with this issue? In a recently conducted search of Acceptability of Publications I 573 the literature, many studies were found that dealt with the topic of faculty status and pub- lications for librarians in general, but only a few addressed this topic specifically. The findings of Kellam and Barker's 1968 study indicated that 97 percent of the seventy-two respondents, mostly ARL library directors, did agree that librarians should be encour- aged to do research and that about 60 percent of this group answered that the research need not be related to library operations or prob- lems. 4 Also, 92 percent of the respondents in this study did favor librarians' participation in nonlibrary professional association work. 5 However, the study also noted that adminis- trators supported such activity to a lesser de- · gree than participation in professional li- brary association work. 6 More relevant to the focus of this article is the recent survey of sixty-eight ARL libraries by Rayman and Goudy. Of the ten libraries in this survey that required publication for promotion and ten- ure, only two required that the publications be in library or information science. 7 THE IssUE SuRVEYED In order to obtain a more accurate assess- ment of the importance of discipline focus as an issue for promotion and tenure, the au- thors conducted a survey of ARL member li- braries. A short questionnaire was printed on a stamped, addressed postcard and sent with a letter of explanation to all108 ARL library directors. These questions together with the results from eighty-two responding univer- sity libraries are listed in table 1. Two important conclusions emerged from the raw data of the questionnaire. (1) Most academic libraries give equal weight to pub- lications in subject fields and library/ information science. As shown in table 1, question 4, fifty-four ARL academic libraries (65.9 percent) allowed equal weight for both types of publications. If the seventeen li- braries that did not answer the question are removed from the sample, then this percent- age rises to 83 percent. Nine libraries indi- cated that subject-field publications had ei- ther less weight or no weight when compared to publications in the field of library/ information science. Looking, however, at the subset of thirteen libraries requiring pub- lication for promotion and tenure, only two of these gave less weight to subject-field pub- 574 I College & Research Libraries • November 1981 TABLE 1 REsuLTS OF A QuESTIONNAIRE REcEIVED FROM EIGHTY-Two ARL UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 1. Size of professional staff: Less than 50 50 to 100 101 to 150 Larger than 150 Total 2. Do your librarians have faculty status? Yes No No answer Total Frequency 27 39 10 6 82 46 35 1 82 3. Is publication essential for promotion and/or tenure? Yes 13 No 67 Noanswer 2 llial ~ Relative Frequency 32.9 % 47 .6 % 12.2 % 7.3% 100.0% 56.1 % 42.7 % 1.2% 100.0% 15.9 % 81.7 % 2.4 % 100.0 % 4. What weight do subject publications carry compared to library/information science publications? More 2 2.4 % Same 54 65 .9 % Less 4 4 .9 %' None 5 6.1% No answer 17 20.7 % Total 82 100.0 % 5. Has the question of the weight of subject publications ever been an issue at your institution? Yes 9 11.0 % No 69 84.1% No answer 4 4.9 % Total 82 100.0 % lications. This agrees with the results ob- tained by Rayman and Goudy. (2) The ques- tion of the relative merit of library/ information science versus subject publications has never been an issue in most ARL academic libraries. Sixty-nine libraries (84.1 percent) said that it had never been an issue; nine libraries (10.9 percent) indicated that it had been an issue (see table 1, question 5). The reader should note that the nine li- braries in question 4 were not the same nine libraries in question 5. The size of the library staff correlates very highly with the answer to these two questions (questions 4 and 5, table 1). All nine libraries that said that publications in subject fields carried less or no value when compared to library/information science publications had professional staffs below 100 while none of the libraries with staffs larger than 100 gave less value to subject-field publications (see ta- ble 2). Likewise, all nine libraries that indi- cated that the subject matter of publications TABLE2 STAFF SIZE BY WEIGHTING POLICY* Staff Size 100or less Larger than 100 Column total Relative Value of Subject-Field Publications to Library/Information Science Publications Same Less or Row Value No Value Total 41 13 54 9 0 9 50 13 63 *Missing cases represent libraries which did not answer question 4 or indicated a greater value for subject-field publications. had been an issue for their library policy had professional staffs of less than 100 (see table 3). The probable explanation of this phenom- enon is to be found in the long tradition of employing subject specialists in the larger ac- ademic libraries. Subject specialists would be prone to publish in the area of their specialty and would have done so for many years, long before faculty status ever became an issue in libraries. Thus publication in subject areas TABLE3 STAFF Sx:z;E BY IssuE oF THE SuBJECT MATTER oF PUBLICATIONS * Staff Size 100or less Larger than 100 Column total Libraries in Which a Policy Iss ue Regarding the Suitability of Subject-Fi eld Publications Has Been Raised Row Yes No Total 9 0 9 53 16 69 62 16 78 • Missing cases represent libraries which did not answer question 5. would have come to be accepted as a tradi- tional and legitimate scholarly activity for these librarians. On the other hand only re- cently, in an era when faculty status has be- come a point at issue and when more and more library school graduates also hold sub- ject Ph.D.s, have the smaller academic li- braries begun to hire subject specialists. The larger libraries settled the issue in an earlier context; only now, under new circumstances, are smaller academic libraries grappling with the problem. CoNCLUSION The requirement that academic librarians confine their research and publications to the issues of library/information science if they wish to receive serious consideration for pro- motion and tenure is obviously not a national trend at this time. This is perhaps due to the existing state of library/information science. Library/information science is the science of the organization of knowledge for purposes Acceptability of Publications I 575 of storage and retrieval , and this very fact is the source of the confusion. In the past the principles by which knowledge was orga- nized derived from the bodies of knowledge being organized and not from any general principles of organization . Witness the Li- brary of Congress classification schedules; they were created by subject specialists . Any general principles of organization on which a core definition of library/information science should rest are, as of now, only partially for- mulated, seldom taught at any level of so- phistication , and in the final analysis may lie in the synthesis of various branches of proba- bility theory and semantics . Two opposing developments within the profession may, however, change this state of affairs. On the one hand an increasing number of subject specialists with Ph.D.s are entering librarianship. They are trained to do re- search in their particular subjects and thus have a vested interest in utilizing that prior training to publish in these subject areas. Li- brarians with only an MLS generally lack these research skills and find it difficult to compete on an equal footing. On the other hand the very logic of defining library/ information science as a profession and an academic discipline requires that librarians circumscribe and lay claim to a specialized body of knowledge that must be advanced by research. Otherwise library/information sci- ence may come to be regarded as nothing more than an eclectic jumble of the arts and sciences and , like nursing, be subordinated to another group of professionals who claim to understand and advance a truly unique and scientific body of knowledge. REFERENCES 1. Herbert White, "Management: A Strategy for Change, " Canadian Library Journal 35:329 (Oct. 1978). 2. Rush G. Miller , "The Influx of Ph.D.s into Li- brarianship : Intrusion or Transfusion ," College & Research Libraries 37:160 (March 1976) . 3. Paula de Simone Watson , "Publication Activity among Academic Librarians, " College & Re- search Libraries 38:380 (Sept. 1977) . 4 . W. Porter Kellam and Dale L. Barker , "Activi- ties and Opportunities of University Librarians for Full Participation in the Educational Enter- prise," College & Research Libraries 29 :197 (May 1968) . 5. Ibid. , p.197. 6 . Ibid . , p.198. 7. Ronald Rayman and Frank Wm. Goudy, "Re- search and Pu):>lication Requirements in Uni- versity Libraries ," College & Research Li- braries41:45 Gan . 1980) .