College and Research Libraries Librarian Status in the Eighty-Nine U.S. Academic Institutions of the Association of Research Libraries: 1982 Thomas G. English A study was conducted of the eighty-nine U.S. academic member-institutions of the Associa- tion of Research Libraries regarding the personnel status of their professional librarians. The survey elicited 100 percent participation. The results revealed that while 61 .4 percent of the state institutions contacted had granted the majority of their librarians faculty status, only 18.7 percent of the private institutions had elected to do so. Also, as might be expected, the findings indicated that librarians with faculty status were more likely to receive the traditional faculty benefits and privileges of rank, tenure, research leave, sabbatical leave, and research funds, than were comparable librarians with professional (non faculty) status. It was also found that, among major research libraries at least, the once-popular thrust to shift academic librari- ans from nonfaculty to faculty status-a movement of considerable impetus in the 1960s and early 1970s-had apparently run its course. Rather, the recent personnel changes within the membership of the Association of Research Libraries were all in the opposite direction, from faculty status to a non faculty or modified faculty status. nitially, a two-part question- naire was sent to the office of academic affairs, or the equiva- lent administrative office, in each of the eighty-nine institutions tar- geted in the survey. Fifty-seven were state institutions, and thirty-two were private (table 1). Part I of the questionnaire sought current factual data on librarian status in each of the institutions contacted. Part II of the questionnaire sought the attitudes and opinions of central administrators (nonlibrarians) regarding the desirability of faculty status for academic librarians.* Opinion data was accepted only from rep- resentatives of central administration. Factual data was accepted from either cen- tral administration of the office of the uni- versity librarian. As it turned out, how- ever, the office of the university librarian was found to have been the principal source of the factual information pro- vided. Collection of the data, and in particular, *A second report, entitled "Administrator Views of Librarian Status," is in preparation by the au- thor. Thomas G. English is assistant professor and head, Bell Museum of Natural History Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 199 200 College & Research Libraries its subsequent verification, proved to be a long, painstaking process, extending from April1980 into the Winter of 1982. During this period the author sent numerous follow-up letters and made extensive use of the telephone to clear up apparent dis- crepancies or omissions in the data re- turned. The same tactics were successfully employed to stimulate responses and to solicit explanations of unusual situations reported. At one point, the charted infor- mation in appendix A was returned to each respondent for verification of accu- racy and completeness. Nearly 30 percent of the respondents took this opportunity to make minor changes in the data origi- nally reported. Ultimately, the factual in- formation sought was retrieved from all eighty-nine of the institutions contacted, 100 percent of the target group. Terminology The author used the word "profes- sional" to denote the several categories of librarian status not designated as faculty. Thus, returns which indicated academic or administrative status for librarians were interpreted as "professional." (Defini- tions of other terms used in this report are included in appendix A.) Factual Information Sought Respondents were asked to report the personnel status of librarians, types of fi- nal appointments accorded, ranks as- signed, benefits and privileges, criteria used to evaluate performances, and plans if any, to effect significant changes in li- brarian personnel status.* PERSONNEL STATUS Based on responses from all eighty-nine institutions, it was found that major pri- vate institutions were much less likely to grant faculty status to librarians than were May 1983 comparable state institutions (tables 2 and 3). Whereas thirty-five of the fifty-seven state institutions (61.4 percent) reported that they had granted faculty status to their librarians, only six of the thirty-two private institutions (18. 7 percent) re- ported that they had done so. In some in- stances, established groups of institutions appeared to be in complete or nearly com- plete agreement regarding the assignment of librarian status. For example, it was found that, with the exception of Mis- souri, all of the Big-Eight institutions- Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, t Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Okla- homa State, had accorded faculty status to their librarians. Conversely, all the Ivy League institutions-Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylva- nia, Princeton, and Yale, had elected to place their librarians in a professional clas- sification. On the other hand, returns from a third group of institutions, the Big- Ten, indicated that its members were in extensive disagreement over the status is- sue. Of the Big-Ten, six institutions, Indi- ana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, and Wisconsin, reported professional status for the majority of their librarians, while the remaining four, illi- nois, Minnesota, Ohio State, and Purdue, indicated that the majority of their librari- ans had faculty status. Furthermore, Min- nesota, Purdue, and Wisconsin reported a mixture of professional and faculty posi- tions. Faculty positions were in the major- ity at Minnesota by a ratio of three-to-one, and at Purdue by a ratio of more than six- to-one. Professional positions were in the majority at Wisconsin, by a ratio of slightly more than two-to-one. As of May 1982, the library staff at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was re- ported to consist of twenty-six faculty po- sitions, and slightly more than twice that number of academic (nonfaculty) posi- *Several institutions reported two distinct personnel classifications for their librarians. In such in- stances, the majority situation was indicated in the tables, and explanations were provided in the text of the report. +Kansas State, the only Big-Eight institution that was not a member of ARL, was queried in regard to librarian status. However, no other data from Kansas State was included in the survey results. TABLE 1 LIST OF INSTITUTIONS SURVEYED State Institutions (57) Alabama Arizona Arizona State California, Berkeley California, Davis California, Los Angeles California, Riverside California, San Diego California, Santa Barbara Cincinnati Colorado Colorado State Connecticut Florida Florida State Georgia Hawaii Houston Indiana Illinois Iowa Iowa State Kansas Kent State Kentucky Louisiana State Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Michigan State Minnesota Missouri Nebraska New Mexico North Carolina Ohio State Oklahoma Oklahoma State Oregon Penn State Purdue Rutgers South Carolina Southern Illinois SUNY- Albany SUNY -Buffalo SUNY -Stony Brook Texas TexasA&M Tennessee Utah Virginia Virginia Poly Washington (Seattle) Washington State Wayne Wisconsin Librarian Status 201 Private Institutions (32) Boston Brigham Young Brown Case Western Chicago Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Duke Emory Georgetown Harvard Howard Johns Hopkins MIT Miami New York Northwestern Notre Dame Pennsylvania Pittsburgh Princeton Rice Rochester Southern California Stanford Syracuse Temple Tulane Vanderbilt Washington (St . Louis) Yale tions. Most of the faculty appointments were upper and middle management po- sitions, such as directors, assistant direc- tors, division heads, and department heads, but also included some bibliogra- phers.1 A few faculty librarians, because of their special academic qualifications, held joint tenured appointments in an outside department or discipline. However, the most recent faculty appointments were re- ported to have been made only at upper management levels. 2 Librarians with fac- ulty status were accorded traditional fac- ulty ranks, and were eligible for tenure. Nonfaculty librarians were called II spe- cialists," but a different series, using the titles ''assistant librarian,'' ''associate li- brarian,'' and ''librarian,'' was under con- sideration. Nonfaculty appointees were eligible for 11 indefinite appointments," and were reviewed for that status by an appropriate external standing committee, as well as internal library staff. Each indi- vidual tenure case being considered was reviewed by ad hoc committees appointed by the chancellor. Reportedly, the per- formance criteria used were the same for either kind of appointment: (1) effective- ness of job performance, and (2) scholarly ability, continuing professional growth, and effectiveness of service to the institu- tion. Two other institutions reported that sig- TABLE2 PERSONNEL STATUS OF THE MAJORITY OF LffiRARIANS (BY NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS) State (57) Private (32) Faculty status 35 (61.4%) 6 (18.7%) Professional 22 (38.6%) 26 (81.3%) status Totals 57 (100%) 32 (100%) 202 College & Research Libraries May 1983 TABLE 3 LIST OF INSTITUTIONS BY PERSONNEL STATUS OF LIBRARIANS State Institutions (57) Reporting Faculty Status for Librarians (35) Alabama Arizona Arizona State Colorado Colorado State Florida Hawaii Houston illinois Iowa State Kansas Kent State Kentucky LSU Minnesota Nebraska New Mexico Ohio State Oklahoma Oklahoma State Oregon Penn State Purdue Rutgers South Carolina Southern Illinois SUNY-Albany SUNY -Buffalo SUNY -Stony Brook TexasA&M Tennessee Virginia Virginia Poly Washington State Wayne State Reporting Nonfaculty Status for Librarians (22) California, Berkeley California, Davis California, Los Angeles California, Riverside California, San Diego California, Santa Barbara Cincinnati Connecticut Florida State Georgia Indiana Iowa Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Michigan State Missouri North Carolina Texas Utah Washington (Seattle) Wisconsin nificant numbers of their librarians were placed in two distinct personnel catego- ries. The University of Houston* reported that its library staff was divided into twenty-one faculty, and twenty profes- sional appointees. The University of Ore- gon reported that 35 percent of its li- brarians were classed as officers of instruction-the same personnel category as the regular teaching faculty-while the great majority (65 percent) were classed as officers of administration, a second faculty category at the University of Oregon .* And finally, Harvard, which reported that Private Institutions (32) Reporting Faculty Reporting Nonfaculty Status for Status for Librarians (6) Librarians (26) Brigham Young Miami New York Notre Dame Pittsburgh Southern California Boston Brown Case Western Reserve Chicago Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Duke Emory Georgetown Harvard Howard Johns Hopkins MIT North western Pennsylvania Princeton Rice Rochester Stanford Syracuse Temple Tulane Vanderbilt Washington (St. Louis) Yale its librarians were placed in a professional category, indicated the presence of eight faculty librarian positions from a total staff of 228. TYPES OF APPOINTMENTS The types of final appointments ac- corded librarians in the institutions con- tacted are summarized in table 4. Thirty- eight of eighty-nine institutions (42.7 percent) reported that librarians were ac- corded indefinite tenure. Forty-one insti- tutions (46.1 percent) indicated that *The dual personnel systems at Oregon, Houston, Minnesota, and Purdue are discussed in greater detail in a later section of the report. TABLE4 TYPES OF FINAL APPOINTMENTS THAT MAY BE ACHIEVED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE LIBRARY STAFF (BY NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS) State (57) Private (32) Indefinite tenure 34 (59.7%) 4 (12.5%) Continuing 19 (33.3%) 22 (68.8%) appointments 4 (07.0%) 6 (18.7%) Term aphointments Tota s 57 (100%) 32 (100%) librarians were granted continuing ap- ' pointments. And, ten of the eighty-nin~ institutions (11.2 percent) reported that li- brarians were given term appointments. In general, continuing appointments were perceived by respondents as nearly identi- cal to those of tenure, in that the term of appointment was considered to be indefi- nite. By the same token, term appoint- ments were sometimes described by re- spondents as de facto continuing appointments, in that the renewal of such appointments was virtually automatic. TYPES OF RANK The ranks assigned librarians from the institutions queried are summarized in ta- ble 5. Twenty-one of the eighty-nine insti- tutions (23.6 percent) reported that their librarians were assigned faculty ranks. Twenty-eight institutions (31.4 percent) reported the use of equivalent ranks.* Thirty-three institutions (37.1 percent) re- ported numerical ranks, and seven of the eighty-nine institutions (07.9 percent) re- ported that librarians were given ranks or titles other than those listed. Usually, in- dividuals were given both a rank and title, such as II art librarian," or II slavic bibliog- rapher." BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES The benefits and privileges accorded li- brarians in the institutions surveyed are summarized in tables 6 and 7. All eighty- nine of the institutions contacted reported the provision of pensions for their librari- Librarian Status 203 ans, and all indicated the provision of tra- vel funds, under prescribed conditions, subject to the general availability of funds. But, with the exception of tuition assist- ance, librarians in state institutions were, on an average, more likely to receive the benefits and privileges listed (table 6). However, the key to the differences in benefits and privileges between state and private institutions was found to be the much higher incidence of faculty status within state institutions. Based on the data presented in table 7, librarians with faculty status were much more likely to be accorded the traditional faculty benefits and privileges of rank, tenure, sabbatical leave, and research funds. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA The criteria used in the evaluation of li- brarian performance fell into three general categories (table 8). Fifty-two of the eighty-nine institutions (58.4 percent) re- ported the use of professional criteria in the evaluation of librarian performance. Twenty-two institutions (24. 7 percent) re- ported the use of an amended version of faculty criteria, while only fifteen of t_he eighty-nine institutions (16.9 percent) m- dicated the use of traditional faculty crite- ria in the evaluation of librarian performance-a rather strikin~ fa~t, ~on­ sidering that forty-one of the mshtuhons surveyed reported faculty status for their librarians. Furthermore, an analysis of fourteen of the fifteen institutions that checked II same as teaching faculty," re- vealed that most used a blend of profes- TABLE 5 TYPES OF RANK ASSIGNED THE MAJORITY OF LIBRARIANS (BY NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS) Sta te (57) Pri va te (32) Faculty rank 20 (35.1%) 1 (03 .1%) Equivalent 21 (36 .8%) 7 (21.9%) rank Numerical 13 (22 .8%) 20 (62 .5%) rank Other 3 (05 .3%) 4 (12 .5%) Totals 57 (100%) 32 (100%) *Equivalent rank denotes assistant librarian, associate librarian, and librarian. 204 College & Research Libraries May 1983 TABLE6 BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES OF LlliRARIANS IN STATE INSTITUTIONS VERSUS LlliRARIANS IN PRN ATE INSTITUTIONS (BY NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS) Faculty rank Indefinite tenure Pension Research funds Travel funds Research leave Sabbatical leave Tuition break Option of nine-month appointment State (57) 20 (35.1%) 34 (59.6%) 57 (100%) 51 (89.5%) 57 (100%) 47 (82.5%) 35 (61.4%) 41 (71 .9%) 15 (26.3%) Private (32) 1 (03.1%) 4 (12.5%) 32 (100%) 13 (40 .6%) 32 (100%) 25 (78.1%) 10 (31 .3%) 28 (87.5%) 7 (21.9%) TABLE 7 BENEFITS AND PRNILEGES OF LlliRARIANS VERSUS NONFACULTY LIBRARIANS (BY NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS) Faculty rank Indefinite tenure Pension Research funds Travel funds Research leave Sabbatical leave Tuition break Option of nine-month appoin_tment Librarians with Faculty Status Forty-one (41) Institutions 21 (51.2%) 37 (90 .2%) 41 (100%) 36 (87.8%) 41 (100%) 34 (82.9%) 34 (82.9%) 29 (70.7%) 12 (29 .3%) Librarians with Nonfaculty Status Forty-eignt (48) Institutions 0 (00.0%) 1 (02.1%)* 48 (100%) 28 (58.3%) 48 (100%) 38 (79.2%) 10 (20.8%) 42 (87.5%) 12 (25.0%) *Indiana reported that its librarians were placed in a special academic category (nonfaculty), parallel to the faculty,and with the provision of indefinite tenure . TABLES CRITERIA USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF LIBRARIAN PERFORMANCE (BY NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS) Same as teaching faculty Modified version of teaching faculty criteria A set of professional criteria Totals sional and faculty criteria.* A review of the listed criteria (appendix B) revealed that in virtually every instance, profes- sional criteria such as librarianship, job performance, collection development, professional effectiveness, and reference services, were linked together with the traditional faculty criteria of teaching, scholarship, and research. The survey results did not disclose a single case in which strictly faculty criteria were listed for the evaluation of librarian perform- State (57) 14 (24.6%) 17 (29.8%) 26 (45.6%) 57 (100%) Private (32) 1 (03.1%) 5 (15.6%) 26 (81.3%) 32 (100%) ance. Rather, it appeared that librarians with faculty status were characteristically required to meet two distinct sets of crite- ria: one set designed to measure perform- ance as librarians, and the other set de- signed to measure performance as faculty. CHANGES IN PERSONNEL STATUS The data summarized in table 9 revealed that U.S. academic members of the Asso- ciation of Research Libraries were no longer inclined to shift librarians from *The fifteenth institution did not provide a written list of criteria. Librarian Status 205 TABLE 9 INSTITUTIONS REPORTING THE POSSIBILITY OF MOVING SOME, OR ALL, LIBRARIANS INTO A DIFFERENT PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION (BY NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS) From faculty to nonfaculty From nonfaculty to faculty Neither change was contemplated Totals . nonfaculty to faculty status, as was com- monly done in the 1960s and early 1970s. Instead, the few changes that were indi- cated in the survey were in the opposite direction, from faculty status to a nonfa- culty, or modified faculty classification. Two cases involving the shift of librari- ans from faculty to professional status were known to have occurred several years prior to the present study. A brief in- sert in the June 1977 issue of the Mountain Plains Library Association Newsletter stated in part: "On May 2, 1977, the Academic Senate of the University of Utah voted to · approve an academic committee's recom- mendation changing the status of the uni- versity librarians from faculty rank to a newly-created 'librarian' rank. ''3 Based on the data returned in the survey, all the ten- ured librarians retained faculty status.* All the remaining librarian positions at the University of Utah were switched, en masse, from tenure-track status to an aca- demic, nonfaculty status. And, all future librarian appointees at Utah were to be placed in the academic series. The second such case was that of the University of Houston. At Houston, pol- icy changes governing librarian classifica- tion evolved gradually over a period of several years. In 1978, after "a superb ref- erence librarian'' had been terminated for failing to meet the traditional faculty crite- ria for tenure, the university librarian, with the support of the library staff, ap- proached central administration with the proposal that, henceforth, library faculty appointees be evaluated by a set of per- formance criteria specifically fitted to li- brarian activities and responsibilities. 4 The administration countered with the pro- posal that all untenured librarians con- State (57) 4 (07.0%) 0 (00.0%) 53 (93 .0%) 57 (100%) Private (32) 0 (00.0%) 0 (00 .0%) 32 (100%) 32 (100%) sider the option of switching their ap- pointments to an existing nonfaculty personnel classification. Nearly one-half the library staff chose to switch their ~p­ pointments to the nonfaculty category, to be evaluated by a set of professional crite- ria. A slight majority, including all the ten- ured librarians, elected to retain faculty status, with the understanding that the criteria used for their evaluation would emphasize the traditional faculty tenure requirements. However, information pro- vided the author in late 1982 revealed that continuing proble~s with the criteria, coupled with the awkwardness of the dual personnel scheme, led to the decision to completely eliminate the option of faculty appointments for librarians at Houston. Tenured librarians were not affected. But all untenured librarians at Houston were placed in the "academic" category, "with most of the benefits of faculty status, but none of the drawbacks. " 5 Returning to the data collected in the present survey, respondents of four insti- tutions, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and Purdue, indicated varying degrees of institutional dissatisfaction with faculty status for librarians. The issue arose at the University of Colorado when a campus- wide faculty review committee found the content of librarian dossiers to be substan- tially different from dossiers submitted by the regular teaching faculty. 6 Conse- quently, the committee requested that it not be asked to consider such dossiers, and that they be forwarded directly to the · office of academic affairs for further re- view and discussion. After months of de- bate it was concluded that faculty status might be inappropriate for librarians, be- cause the traditional faculty performance *Five positions in the general library system, and two positions in the bio-medical and law libraries. 206 College & Research Libraries criteria appeared to be largely unsuited to librarian activities and responsibilities. However, officials of the institution were apparently unable to agree on a possible remedy for the situation. For a time it was thought that all new librarian appointees would be placed in a nonfaculty personnel category. But, as recently as November 1982/ the issue had not changed, being described by the administrator respon- dent to the survey as "dormant." Mean- while, librarians due for promotion or ten- ure at the University of Colorado were treated somewhat differently from the regular teaching faculty, in that the campus-wide review committee was not involved in the process. According to the administrator respon- dent from the University of Oregon, a sig- nificant number of librarians were placed in increasing jeopardy because of the diffi- culty of meeting faculty tenure require- ments.8 Consequently, in 1980, as a result of a long history of debate, librarians at the University of Oregon were presented with the choice of remaining officers of instruc- tion, the same personnel category as the teaching faculty, or becoming officers of administration, a second faculty category, according to officials at the University of Oregon. "The purpose of the shift was to remove from professional librarians some of the burden of research and publication required of those teaching faculty mem- bers who achieve promotion and ten- ure.' ' 9 Librarians who chose to convert their appointments to the administrative category were to retain traditional faculty ranks and all other faculty prerequisites. However, tenure was not available to offi- cers of administration. Instead, these ap- pointees were eligible for three-year term appointments. In November 1980, accord- ing to the university librarian, 10 roughly 50 percent of the library staff at Oregon elected to switch to the officer of adminis- tration category. At the same time, it was concluded that all new librarian appoint- ees would be placed in the latter classifica- tion. Consequently, by April 1982, May 1983 through attrition, the ratio had shifted from 65 percent officers of administration to 35 percent officers of instruction. And, it was projected that, by 1990, the conver- sion to officers of administration would be complete. At the University of Minnesota, persis- tent problems with the interpretation of faculty performance criteria for librarians led to the conclusion that at least some li- brarian positions were inappropriately classed as faculty . Thus, in December 1980, when a new academic staff classifi- cation was adopted by the institution, a new professional librarian series was in- cluded. Performance criteria for the librar- ian series focused largely on specific day- to-day work activities and responsibilities. Prospective appointees were offered equivalent ranks, rather than faculty ranks, and continuing appointments, rather than tenure. As of May 1, 1982, fif- teen positions had been established in the new series, all situated in systems, techni- cal services, or interlibrary loan activities. Five of the fifteen positions were occupied by individuals who had elected to switch from faculty, tenure-track appointments to the new professional classification. And, although faculty positions remained in the majority at Minnesota by a ratio of more than three-to-one, it was anticipated that, in the future, additional conversions of faculty positions would occur, as ten- ured librarians vacated their positions . In August 1982 it was officially concluded that all new librarian appointees at Minne- sota would be placed in the professional • 11 senes. At Purdue University, similar problems with promotion and tenure requirements brought about a policy change within the libraries, which was designed to separate technical service positions from those in public services. On July 1, 1981, with the consent of the individuals affected, all the untenured catalogers and systems librari- ans at Purdue (six positions) were trans- ferred from tenure-track appointments to a professional classification.* But, faculty *No case was found in any of the eighty-nine institutions surveyed in which a tenured librarian had relinquished faculty status or tenure. librarian positions remained in the major- ity at Purdue by a ratio of more than six-to- one. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A survey was conducted of the eighty- nine U.S. academic institutions of the As- sociation of Research Libraries regarding the personnel status of their professional librarians. The principal findings were: 1. State institutions were more than three times more likely to grant librarians faculty status than were private institu- tions. 2. Of the three types of final appoint- ments reported for librarians, continuing appointments (46.1 percent) were slightly more prevalent than indefinite tenure (42.7 percent). Only ten institutions (11.2 percent) reported that their librarians were given term appointments. 3. Thirty-seven of the forty-one institu- tions who reported faculty status for their librarians also reported the provision of indefinite tenure for their librarians. Only one of the forty-eight institutions that re- ported professional (nonfaculty) status for its librarians also reported the provision of tenure for its librarians. 4. There was wide variation, among the institutions surveyed, in the assignment of rank to librarians. Numerical ranks (37 .1 percent) were the most popular choice, with equivalent ranks (31.4 per- cent) second, and traditional, faculty ranks (23.6 percent) third in frequency. Usually individuals were given both rank and a descriptive title, such as "art librar- ian,'' or ''slavic bibliographer.'' 5. Only twenty-one of the forty-one in- stitutions that reported faculty status for their librarians also reported that the ma- jority of their librarians were assigned tra- ditional faculty ranks. 6. Librarians with faculty status were much more likely to receive traditional fac- ulty benefits and privileges such as rank, tenure, research funds, and sabbatical Librarian Status 207 leave, than were librarians with profes- sional status. 7. Three different categories of librarian performance criteria were reported by the institutions surveyed. Over half (58.4 per- cent) reported the use of professional cri- teria in the evaluation of librarian per- formance, while a fourth (24.7 percent) reported the use of an amended version of faculty criteria. Only fifteen institutions (16.9 percent) claimed that the criteria used for evaluating librarian performance were the same as those used for the regu- lar teaching faculty. But an analysis of the criteria listed by the latter group of institu- tions revealed that virtually all used a combination of both professional and fac- ulty criteria. The study did not disclose a single instance in which faculty criteria alone were used in the evaluation of librar- ian performance. 8. Librarians with faculty status were characteristically required to meet two dis- tinct sets of criteria: one set designed to measure performance as librarians; the other set designed to measure perform- ance as faculty. And, in a few institutions, librarians with professional (nonfaculty) status were required to meet very similar dual sets of criteria. In either case, the weight given one set of criteria, in propor- tion to the other, could not be determined from the data received . 9. Among the institutions surveyed, members were no longer inclined to shift librarians from nonfaculty to faculty sta- tus, as was commonly done in the sixties and early seventies. Rather, the few, re- cent changes reported were all in the op- posite direction, from faculty status to a nonfaculty or modified faculty status. Dif- ficulties encountered in the interpretation of faculty performance criteria for librari- ans were found to be at the heart of these changes. 10. Not one case was found in any of the eighty-nine institutions surveyed in which a tenured librarian had relin- quished faculty status or tenure. REFERENCES 1. Joseph Treyz, letter to author, 18 May 1982. r-----------------------------------~ ----------------------------------------------~ 208 College & Research Libraries May 1983 2. Bryant Kearl, letter to author, 18 October 1982. 3. "University of Utah Librarians Lose Faculty Status; Retain Academic Status," Mountain Plains Li- brary Association. Newsletter 21:7 (June 1977) . 4. Thomas W. Shaughnessy, telephone interview with author, 14 December 1981. 5. , letter to author, 17 November 1982. 6. Brangwyn Foote, telephone interview, 21 January 1982. 7. , letter to author, 2 November 1982. 8. Robert C. Albrecht, telephone interviews with author, 7 August 1980, and 27 February 1982. 9. , letter to author, 30 December 1981 . 10. George W. Shipman, letters to author, 29 April1982, and 14 May 1982. 11. Kenneth H . Keller, vice-president for Academic Affairs, University of Minnesota, letter to Eldred Smith, university librarian, University of Minnesota, 12 August 1982. APPENDIX A: BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES OF ARL LIBRARIANS: 1982 Explanation of Column Headings Used in Appendix A Column 1. Type of Institution: State (s) or Private (p). Column 2. Faculty Rank (x): Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, etc .; Equivalent Rank (e) : Assis- tant Librarian, Associate Librarian, etc.; Numerical Rank (n) : Librarian I, II, III, IV; Other (o) : Usu- ally descriptive titles, e.g., "Art Librarian ." Column 3 . Indefinite Tenure: Permanence of appointment, whose purpose is the protection of aca- demic freedom. Column 4. Continuing Appointment: Similar to tenure, in that the term of appointment is indefinite, following the successful transition of a probationary period. For purposes of this study, such expres- sions as "career status" or "indefinite appointment" were interpreted to be variations of continu- ing appointments. Term Appointment: A renewable contract, usually of 1-3 years duration. Column 5. Pension: Retirement plan. Institution contributes share. Column 6. Research Funds: Funds that are made available, often on a competitive basis, for materials, clerical assistance, research assistance, etc . Column 7. Travel Funds: Generally, monies that are made available to compensate staff members whose professional needs and obligations necessitate travel. Column 8. Research Leave: Leave granted for the purpose of carrying out well-structured, clearly de- fined research, usually with full or part salary. Column 9. Sabbatical Leave: From the word'' sabbath,'' to rest. Traditionally, a year's leave of absence on half pay (there are several variations). An opportunity for elected research, but also a time of reflection and renewal. Column 10. Tuition Break: Institutional support (all or part) of the appointee's tuition expenses . Usu- ally limited to one course per term, with administrative approval. Column 11. Option of Nine-Month appointment (including variations up to 10.5 months). Column 12. Status: Faculty (F) or Professional (P). The personnel status of the majority of the profes- sional library staff. For purposes of this study, the terms "classified," "administrative," "staff," and ''academic'' were interpreted to be variations of professional (nonfaculty) status. Note : Whenever librarians in a single institution were found to be placed in two different classifica- tions, the author chose to designate the majority of appointees. For example F(2) signifies that the majority of librarian positions were faculty, but that there were also significant numbers of nonfac- ulty positions within the same staff. Similarly, the entries for rank, tenure, and continuing appoint- ments indicate the majority where other conditions also exist. Librarian Status 209 ARIZONA S e x x x x X X F ARIZONA STATE S e x x x x X x X F BOSTON P n X X X X X P BRIGHAH YOUNG P e X x X x x x X F BROWN p _n_ _l X X X X p CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY S e X X X X X X p CALIFORNIA, DAVIS s • X X X X X X p CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES s • X X X X X X p CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE s • X X X X X p CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO s • X X X X X X p CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA s • X X X X X X p CASE WESTERN RESERVE P n 1 X X X X X X p CHICAGO P n X X X X X p CINCINNATI s • X X X X X X X p COLORADO S X X X X X X X X , COLORADO STATE 5 X X X X X X X X X F COLUMBIA P n X X X X X p CONNECTICUT S n X X X X X X p CORNELL p • 1 X X X X p DARTI«>UTH p 0 X X X X p DUKE p • X X X ll: X p EK>RY P n 1 X X X X X X X p FLORIDA s e x X X X X X X X F FLORIDA STATE s • X X X X X X X p GEORGETOWN p 0 X X X X p GEORGIA S n X X X p HARVARD p n X X X X X p HAWAII S e X X X X X X X F HOUSTON S X X X X X X F(2) HOWARD p • X X X X p ILLINOIS 5 X X X X X X X r INDIANA S e x X X X X X IOWA S n X X X p IOWA STATE S X X X X X X X , JOHNS HOPKINS p 0 X X X X p KANSAS S n x X X X X X r KENTUCKY S ft X X X X X X r KENT STATE 5 X X X X X Z X Z , LOUISIANA STATE 5 e X X X X X X r l • term or annual appointr.tents 2-111 ix of faculty and professional positions 3· librarians are placed in two, distinct faculty categories x• yes e ~ equival ent ran ks n-nu11erical ranks o- other • .. 0 . ., .c:: 5· ·~ ~:E .... co .... p:, Ji 0 ..0 >. ... '0 ~ ~ _ _.!.HAR=~YLAN="-'D~-----------t-::S:-11-n::.-t---lr--:::.-x x X X P ,! e :! HASSACHUSI.Tl'S S n x x x x x x x x P ~ I : M.l.T p n X X X X X X p S ,8 ~ --~MIUUU~L-------------------~P~~x~-x~~~~x~~~~x~~+-~x~-=x+-----~,r---t 0 ~ ~ MICHIGAN S e X X X X X X _!'. 210 College & Research Libraries May 1983 MINNESOTA S X x x X X _x _X x F(l)_ MISSOURI S n 1 x X x X x x x P NEBRASKA s X X X X X X X X F NEW MEXICO S X X x X X x x ·X x F NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTHWESTERN NOTRE DAME OHIO STATE OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA STATE OREGON PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA STATE PURDUE RICE ROCHESTER RUTGERS SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN ILLINOIS STANFORD SUNY - ALBANY SUNY - BUFFALO SUNY - STONY BROOK SYRACUSE TEMPLE TENNESSEE TEXAS TEXAS A & M TULANE UTAH VANDERBILT VIRGINIA VIRGINIA POLY. WASHINGTON (SEATTLE) WASHINGTON STATE WASHINGTON (ST. LOUIS) WAYNE STATE ,- WISCONSIN YALE p e X X X X X S e 1 X X X X p n X X X X X X P e 1 x _x _X _x · _x S X X X X X X X X S X X X X X ~ S X 1 X X X X X X p R X X X X X X S e X X X X X X X p n X X X X X X X p n X X X X X S X X X X X X X p R X X X X X X X p n X X X X X X X S ft X X X X X X X S 0 X X X X p ft X X X X X X X S X X X X X XX X p e X X X S e X X X X X X X S e X X X X X X X S e X X X X X X X p R XX XX X X p ft X X X X X S X X X X X X X S 0 1 X X S X X X X X X p ft X X X X X X X S e X X x ~ x X X X p R X X X X X S X X X X X X X S X X X X X X _:!l S R X X X X X X S R X X X X X X X p p _x F X X X X X X X X p p F(3) p , F p F(2) p p , , F F p F , , p p , p , p p p , , p , Ps : 1 t-=x~--~~x~~x~--~i~~ x~-----+~,'~~,. .. x XXXXXX X . S 0 X X X X X X p(2) p ft 'll X X X X ' X X L !=term Gr annual a~pointnoents 2 =mi>~. of faculty and professional po si tions 3 ~ 1 ibraria.ns are placed in two, distinct faculty cat~gories e ~equi valent rank s n=nu:. erical ranks o=other • .. 0 • II r:: ..r:: r:: .... ... x ..... co-.. D:, Ji 0 ,D "" ... "0 (!1 ... ........ " . : I : J ~~ Librarian Status 211 APPENDIX B: THE CRITERIA LISTED BY RESPONDENTS THAT CHECKED "SAME AS TEACHING FACULTY" (TABLE 8) Alabama: (1) Excellence in the performance of assigned duties (Reference and research assistance, col- lection development, organization of collections, orientation of patrons). (2) Excellence in instruc- tion (adjunct professorships, lectures, workshops, internship guidance). Houston: (1) Professional effectiveness. (2) Scholarly achievement. lllinois: (1) Librarianship. (2) Teaching. Kent State: (1) Job performance . (2) Research/scholarship; may be demonstrated either through publi- cation or additional education. Minnesota: (1) Research: distinction in the development of University Libraries' research collections, in the effective extension of bibliographic control over these collections, and in other substantive research contributions. (2) Teaching: effectiveness in providing reference and information service, including one-to-one instruction, lectures, courses, the preparation of bibliographic and instruc- tional aids, and other forms of teaching. Nebraska: (1) Work performance. (2) External professional contributions and activities. New Mexico: (1) Job performance. (2) Research. Ohio State: (1) Teaching performance (Performance equated with teaching in one's assigned role as librarian). (2) Research and publication performance. (3) Professional/community service. Oklahoma: (1) Librarianship. (2) Service. Purdue: (1) Excellence in librarianship. (2) Research and publication. Rutgers: (1) Professional effectiveness-equivalent to teaching effectiveness of the teaching faculty . (2) General usefulness . Southern lllinois: (1) Instructional support-competence in one's professional assignment (compara- ble to teaching) . (2) Research and publication; creative activity . (3) Service. Tennessee : (1) Performance as a librarian. (2) Scholarship, research, creative accomplishment, or pro- fessional development. New York University: (1) Service. (2) Academic achievement; publication. (3) Professional participa- tion . Note : The fifteenth institution, Oregon, did not list criteria . INDEX ALERT The Index for Volumes 26 to 40 (1965-1979) of College & Research Libraries and College & Research Libraries News, prepared by Eldon W. Tamblyn, has been published and is now available from ACRL. Many items in C&RL News which are not indexed any- where else in library literature appear in this 63-page cumulation. Prices are $10 for ACRL members and $12 for nonmembers. Order from the ACRL office, 50 East Hu- ron Street, Chicago, IL 60611. Payment must accompany all orders.