College and Research Libraries Faculty Perceptions of Librarians at the University of Manitoba Gaby Divay, Ada M. Ducas, and Nicole Michaud-Oystryk In early 1985, the faculty at the University of Manitoba were asked to complete a questionnaire exploring their perceptions of the academic librarians on campus. The responses were analyzed according to faculties grouped in five large disciplines and professorial ranks. The analysis of the data focused on faculty-librarian contacts, the usefulness of librarians, the importance of librarians' academic subject background, and their status. Overwhelmingly, librarians were seen as ''professionals'' with a ''service'' function. Activities such as research, teaching, and management received low ratings. The results therefore indicate a low acceptance of librarians as full-fledged academic colleagues in the University of Manitoba setting. n 1974, librarians at the Univer- sity of Manitoba (UofM) were included in the newly consti- tuted Faculty Association. In 1980, all fifty-five librarians were ranked according to the traditional requirements of performance, research, service, and where applicable, teaching. The collective agreement, in conjunction with the librari- ans' promotion guidelines, regulates the advancement of all librarians through the ranks of general, assistant, associate, and librarian. Even though considered aca- demic staff, librarians differ from their fac- ulty colleagues in that they hold continu- ing appointments rather than tenured positions. The authors wanted to see how, after eleven years in the faculty bargaining unit and five years in an equivalent rank and promotion system, the academic librari- ans are regarded by their faculty col- leagues, and if they are accepted as useful partners in the academic community. In the extensive literature on academic status for university librarians, there are very few articles dealing with faculty per- ception of librarians. The most important one to date is Kathy Cook's "Rank, Status and Contribution of Academic Librari- ans. " 1 It explores the situation at South- ern Illinois University-Carbondale (SIU-C), where librarians also hold aca- demic status. John Budd and Patricia Cou- tant report on the results of a survey closely modeled on Cook's study, examin- ing faculty perceptions of librarians in the somewhat smaller institution of South- eastern Louisiana University (SLU). 2 Cook invites "a replication of [her] study ... on many campuses" in order to gain a better understanding ''of faculty attitudes toward librarians."3 As this appeal paral- leled our interests, a similar research proj- ect was undertaken at the University of Manitoba. Gaby Divay is German Bibliographer and Cataloger at the University of Manitoba, AdaM. Ducas is Director of Educational Resources and Library Services at the Health Sciences Centre, and Nicole Michaud-Oystryk is Head of Reference Services at the Elisabeth Defoe Library, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2 . 27 28 College & Research Libraries U of M is one of the largest universities in Canada. It has thirteen libraries with collections totaling 1.4 million volumes and a full-time equivalent staff of about 250 employees, including 55 librarians. The libraries serve a community of ap- proximately 25,000 students, faculty, and citizen borrowers. METHODOLOGY AND PROFILE A questionnaire was designed with the following objectives: • to determine the extent and nature of faculty-librarian interaction • to discover the faculty members' per- ceptions of librarians at the University of Manitoba In January 1985 the questionnaire was sent to the 1,095 faculty members holding full-time academic appointments. They were coded to facilitate two follow-up mailings to nonrespondents. Faculty members were reassured about the confi- dentiality of their replies. The final num- ber of usable responses was 633, or 59% of the population surveyed. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was used to deter- mine the percentages for the analysis of the results. Faculty were asked to indicate their affil- iation with one of twenty faculties/ schools, including an "other" category. Four unlisted units were derived from this last category. Since there were few re- spondents in some of the faculties/ schools, all the units were regrouped into the following five disciplines for statistical analysis: • Humanities and social sciences (admin- istrative studies, arts, human ecology, law, social work, St. John's and St. Paul's Colleges) • Pure and applied sciences (agriculture, engineering, science) • Health sciences (dental hygiene, dentis- try, medical rehabilitation, medicine, nursing, pharmacy) • Education (education, continuing edu- cation, counseling, physical education) • Fine arts (architecture, art, music) Thirty-five percent of the respondents were from the humanities and social sci- ences, 30% from the pure and applied sci- ences, 15% from the health sciences, 12% from education, and 8% from the fine arts. January 1987 The distribution by rank showed that 38% of the respondents were professors, 36% associate professors, 20% assistant profes- sors, 3% lecturers, and 3% instructors. Twenty percent of respondents used their primary library almost daily, 57% several times a month, 12% about once a month, and 10% several times a year or al- most never. Intensive library use, evident for all disciplines, increases with advance- ment in rank. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Having studied the profile of the re- spondents, the authors analyzed the fol- lowing aspects of the data: • type of faculty-librarian contact (inside and outside of the library setting) • perceived usefulness of librarians • perceived importance of librarians' aca- demic subject background • perceived status of librarians at the uni- versity Each of these aspects was linked with the grouped disciplines and faculty rank. CONTACTS By far the most common faculty- librarian contact in the library setting was reference assistance (90%). The next high- est was computerized literature searching (51%). This percentage is noteworthy con- sidering the relatively recent introduction of this service to the libraries. The health sciences and education groups reported the highest degree of contact with 79 and 69% respectively. This no doubt reflects the early availability of computerized databases in those fields and the subsidi- zation of these services by the respective faculties at the university. In the pure and applied sciences, 52% indicated contact with regard to computerized literature searching as compared to oruy 36% in the humanities and social sciences and 27% in the fine arts. The higher percentage in the pure and applied sciences might be re- lated to the more extensive and more pre- cise coverage of the subject area in terms of available databases. In the humanities and social sciences, databases became available considerably later, and search- ing is hampered by the absence of con- trolled vocabulary due to conceptual diffi- culties inherent in the subject manner (see table 1). Faculty Perceptions 29 TABLE 1 CONTACT IN THE LIBRARY BY FACULTY DISCIPLINE Reference Collection Computerized Literature Library Library Assistance Devel~ment Searching Instruction Policy (%) ( ) (%) (%) (%) Humanities and Social Sciences 93 Pure and Applied Sciences 85 Health Sciences 83 Education 95 Fine Arts 98 Average 90 Faculty-librarian contacts in the area of collection development were more fre- quent in the humanities and social sci- ences than in the sciences. This might be attributed to different collection develop- ment practices in the various libraries. In some libraries, bibliographers have a higher degree of autonomy than in others where the selection function is to a large extent reduced to purchasing materials re- quested by the faculty. Only 27% reported contact for library in- struction with the respondents in the pure and applied sciences claiming the least contact (18%). Involvement in library pol- icy was low overall (15%). The majority of the respondents who commented on other types of interaction specified that they had contact with ''li- brarians" in interlibrary loan, reserve, and circulation, areas not presently staffed by librarians. This indicates that faculty members have difficulty differenti- ating between professional and nonpro- fessional staff. When the responses to the question re- garding contacts in the library were re- lated to professorial rank, it does not ap- pear that faculty members in one 57 36 28 15 34 52 18 15 38 79 31 · 11 44 69 37 21 67 27 29 14 47 51 27 15 academic rank are interacting more than those at other levels. Most contacts outside the library setting occurred in faculty/departmental commit- tees (51%) and university social functions (47%). For the latter, a sharp contrast was ob- served in the pure and applied sciences, where roughly half of the 47% average in- dicated faculty-librarian interaction. The least interaction took place on search/pro- motion committees (7%). The low re- sponse could be explained by the fact that librarians and faculty seldom serve on each other's search committees (see table 2). When these results were linked with professorial rank, the three upper levels consistently reported the highest rate of faculty-librarian contacts. Since active in- volvement in committees seems almost a prerogative of the higher ranks, librarians should consider their own participation as an excellent opportunity to gain the recog- nition of their faculty colleagues. USEFULNESS Several questions were posed to deter- mine how faculty perceive the usefulness TABLE2 CONTACT OUTSIDE THE LIBRARY BY FACULTY DISCIPLINE Faculty/ University- Search/ u~~:fty Departmental wide Promotion Committees Committees Committees Functions (%) (%) (%) (%) Humanities and Social Sciences 38 30 4 52 Pure and Applied Sciences 55 15 17 24 Health Sciences 64 21 5 57 Education 49 25 2 53 Fine Arts 73 9 9 55 Average 51 22 7 47 30 College & Research Libraries of librarians. When asked how useful librarians were in keeping faculty members informed of changes in the library, 62% of the respon- dents claimed that librarians were useful or very useful. Only 38% had a favorable opinion about being informed ofnew pub- lications in their discipline. For these two questions, there were no marked differ- ences between the disciplines. As aca- demic ranking went up, so did the posi- tive perceptions (see table 3). Sixty-four percent of the faculty who rated librarians' assistance in their re- search found it useful or very useful. Edu- cation led with 77% compared with only 49% from the pure and applied sciences. When this question was related to rank, the lecturers and the instructors showed that they value this service much more highly than the other functions surveyed. To the question exploring the useful- ness of librarians in assisting faculty in their teaching, 51% of the respondents in- dicated that the librarians' assistance was valued. There were no remarkable differ- ences between the ranks, with the excep- tion of the instructors who scored the low- January 1987 est; their results were only half as positive as those of the other groups. To recapitulate, assistance in research is the function most appreciated by faculty, followed by information about changes in the library, and assistance in teaching. In- formation about new publications is far less valued. To the question ''How often do you re- fer your students to a librarian?," 30% of the respondents refer students to a librar- ian almost daily to several times a month, 42% refer students once a month to sev- eral times a year, and the remaining 28% almost never refer them to a librarian. The responses of the five disciplines showed very different referral patterns among them. The highest ratings came from edu- cation and the fine arts. Far behind were the pure and applied sciences and the health sciences. The low referral rate in these disciplines might be related to the nature of scientific research and study, the sciences being less library-dependent than the humanities (see table 4). When the responses to this question were grouped by faculty rank, no signifi- cant differences were observed. The au- TABLE 3 USEFULNESS BY FACULTY DISCIPLINE Changes Publications Assistance in Library in Discipline in Research (%) (%) (%) Humanities and Social Sciences 62 36 70 Pure and Applied Sciences 56 38 49 Health Sciences 62 40 63 Education 66 42 77 Fine Arts 71 40 60 Average U + VU* 62 38 64 *Percentages represent sum of responses in useful and very useful categories. TABLE4 REFERRAL OF STUDENTS BY FACULTY DISCIPLINE Humanities and Social Sciences Pure and Applied Sciences Health Sciences Education Fine Arts Average Almost Daily to Several Times a Month (%) 34 17 13 52 50 30 Once a Month to Several Times a Year (%) 45 44 51 31 24 42 Assistance in Teaching (%) 58 44 42 56 54 51 Almost Never (%) 21 39 36 17 26 28 thors recognize that the results to this question could be skewed because some respondents might have answered this question with the library rather than the li- brarian in mind. The faculty's perception of the librari- ans' involvement in the education of their students provided another perspective on the role and usefulness of the librarians in the university setting. While a total of 63% thought that librarians had some to very substantial involvement in the educa- tional process, 42% of these respondents felt that librarians had only some involve- ment. Education valued librarians the highest (81% ), the pure and applied sci- ences the lowest (50%). For many, librari- ans had no involvement at all in their stu- dents' education. A comparison of the results by disci- pline with those of faculty at SLU and SIU-C showed noticeable differences. Whereas 58% of the SLU faculty and 51% of the SIU-C faculty thought that librari- ans' contributions were substantial, only a disappointing 21% of the University of Manitoba faculty believed that librarians had more than some involvement in the education of students. This lack of recognition is incongruous with the positive response obtained in other areas. It is startling that the value faculty members themselves place on li- brarians' assistance in their teaching, and the frequency at which they claim to refer students to librarians are not reflected in their view of librarians as contributors to the educational process. How are librari- ans being rated as useful if it is not for skills that influence the education of stu- dents? Why are students being referred to them at a high rate if they are not regarded as special resource people who have a role to play in shaping the future graduates of the university? This contradiction can be explained only by the low expectations faculty have of librarians and/or the mis- understanding of their abilities and re- sponsibilities. SUBJECT BACKGROUND In addition to their degree in library and information science, more and more aca- demic librarians are expected to have or to Faculty Perceptions 31 acquire a subject specialization at the graduate level. Reflecting this trend, many librarians at the University of Mani- toba are obtaining additional graduate de- grees in subject areas related to their re- sponsibilities. In order to determine how the faculty view the importance of such qualifications, questions relating to the usefulness of a subject background were evaluated. Overall, a fairly high percentage of the respondents value the subject back- grounds librarians have acquired or are developing. The results indicated that subject specialization was considered most important for collection develop- ment, which received an overall rating of 75%, followed by reference assistance with 73%, computerized literature search- ing and cataloging both with 71%, and li- brary instruction with a comparatively low 57%. It is interesting to note that a spe- cialization is deemed more important by faculty members in those disciplines where librarians have traditionally ob- tained their education, i.e. the humani- ties, the social sciences, and education. The sciences do not seem to value a sub- ject background to the same extent. In fact, few librarians working in these fields tend to have a formal science education, but have gained their expertise through experience (see table 5). When the questions related to the use- fulness of a subject specialization were linked with the academic rank of the re- spondents, the higher ranks generally val- ued a subject specialization for collection development. These results demonstrate considerable concern for the collection de- velopment function. The three highest ac- ademic ranks also concurred in their as- sessment of a subject specialization for cataloging. Like collection development, cataloging is a necessary function in mak- ing library materials available. The impor- tance of adequate subject analysis seems to be clearly recognized by the higher ranking academics. A comparison between faculty members reporting actual contact with librarians and faculty members reporting no contact revealed that the value of a subject special- ization was rated considerably higher by 32 College & Research Libraries January 1987 TABLE 5 VALUE OF SUBJECT BACKGROUND BY FACULTY DISCIPLINE Reference Computerized Library Collection Literature Assistance Searching Instruction Devel~ment eatarofing (%) (%) (%) () (% Humanities and Social Sciences 80 72 65 85 76 Pure and Applied Sciences 62 67 46 68 68 Health Sciences 55 69 52 54 58 Education 93 91 63 83 80 Fine Arts 75 56 57 76 71 Average U + VU* 73 71 57 75 71 Percentagest 74/59 80/64 76/49 84/67 *Percentages represent sum of responses in useful and very useful categories. +Percentages on the left represent responses of faculty who reported contact in those areas . Percentages on the right represent re- sponses of faculty who reported no contact in those areas . the former group. The ratings improved by at least 15%. The most notable differ- ence was in library instruction, where a 27% increase was observed. These results strongly suggest that faculty members who have interacted with librarians have a better understanding of their functions and the usefulness of their expertise. The relatively high value placed on sub- ject specialization for nearly all functions surveyed is particularly interesting. Al- though this issue of education beyond the library science degree has fueled discus- sion among librarians for many years, it is clear that faculty recognize the importance of advanced degrees for academic librari- ans. It is most encouraging for librarians who have obtained or are working toward a graduate or postgraduate degree to see that their advanced qualifications are con- sidered valuable. The faculty's favorable response indicates that librarians should be given support to undertake further studies and to develop their expertise in a specific field. Subject specialization may indeed be a positive step toward a greater acceptance of librarians by faculty as their academic peers. ROLE AND STATUS To determine how faculty perceive the librarians' role within the university com- munity, they were asked to rank four functions in order of importance. As ex- pected in view of traditional labeling, ser- vice received the highest ranking, fol- lowed by research and teaching, with management being last. When the question of the librarians' sta- tus was raised, the respondents could choose between academics, professionals, nonprofessionals, and other. Overall, 85% of the respondents viewed librarians as professionals, and only 15% classed them as academics. The lowest result was recorded from the pure and applied sci- ences, where only 7% considered librari- ans to be academics. In agreement with this poor opinion, 12% from the pure and applied sciences classified librarians as nonprofessionals, a rating twice as high as the average of 6% (see table 6). It was particularly disheartening to com- pare the results of the status questions with those of SLU and SIU-C. Whereas 41% of the faculty at SLU and 28% of the faculty at SIU-C viewed librarians as aca- demics, only 15% of the faculty did so at · the UofM. Conversely, 65% of the faculty at SIU-C, 57% at SLU, and a very high 85% at the UofM saw librarians as profession- als. The answers to this question, more than any other, indicate that though the teaching faculty at the UofM acknowledge the value of librarians, they do not con- sider them their academic peers. It was ex- pected that the perceptions of faculty at the UofM would be as good as or better than those previously reported, but unfor- tunately, this was not the case. Linking this question with academic rank revealed that the lecturers' percep- tion of librarians' status was atypical, based on their comparatively high ratings of librarians as academics and nonprofes- sionals. Faculty Perceptions 33 TABLE6 STATUS BY FACULTY DISCIPLINE Academic Professional Nonprofessional (%) (%) (%) Humanities and Social Sciences 15 88 4 Pure and Applied Sciences 7 81 12 Health Sciences 23 84 4 Education 18 90 3 Fine Arts 12 82 6 Average* 15 85 6 *Because multiple answers were accepted, the total result exceeds 100%. Only nineteen respondents chose the "other" category, but their observations were quite revealing. Some felt that "li- brarian'' should have been included in the options, considering that title expressive enough. While one termed librarians as researchers, other opinions were less fa- vorable. Semiprofessionals, support staff, and trained service personnel figured among the suggestions. Certain remarks indicated that the respondents had no idea of a librarian's functions, an impres- sion well confirmed in the invited com- ments. COMMENTS Almost one quarter of the respondents welcomed the opportunity to express themselves freely about the question- naire, the issues raised in it, or other areas of concern. While 59% of these directed their comments to the library services and collections, 41% chose to voice their opin- ions more specifically about librarians. It was remarkable that many respondents seem to consider the library simply as an institution, with little regard for the peo- ple who are instrumental in its function- ing. Several respondents recognized their lack of knowledge or experience to which they attributed some of their negative re- sponses. It was noted that many faculty members make no distinction between li- brarians and other library staff. Although a statement at the beginning of the ques- tionnaire attempted to define the librari- . ans and their function, it was clear that misconceptions about the role of the dif- ferent staff components remain common even in the academic community. Some respondents questioned the high number of librarians employed by the uni- versity and objected to their salaries. These comments echoed the numerous complaints concerning the lack of funds to develop the collections. Benefits such as research/study leaves were criticized not only for financial reasons, but also on philosophical grounds. The importance of advanced degrees was also reduced to a monetary level. Some felt that it was ill- advised to spend money to employ librari- ans with higher degrees when librarians were destined to service and the collec- tions were inadequate. There appears to be little recognition of the fact that collec- tions, no matter how large, lose their value if they are not properly organized or fully exploited. While some supported subject special- ization in certain areas like law or music, others thought that it was unrealistic to ex- pect librarians to be educated in the di-. verse fields of study offered at the univer- sity. Subject specialization was judged particularly valuable for collection devel- opment. However, some expressed little respect for librarians' competence in this area, and others even suggested a more active involvement of faculty in collection development. The research role of librarians is not re- garded highly by all. One respondent saw it as a possibility only if the institution of- fered a degree in library science. It was not clear if he or she meant that all academic librarians could then pursue research in- terests or that only faculty members affili- ated with such a school should have that responsibility. Certainly, this would pre- clude all research in subject areas other than library science. In summary, the faculty members' per- 34 College & Research Libraries ceptions of librarians were colored by their lack of knowledge. Many declared openly that they did not know enough about li- brarians' educational background and training. The librarian's role in an aca- demic institution was often questioned or misunderstood. Respondents noted the · . need for more contact between faculty and librarians. A higher profile and increased academic involvement seem implicit in this demand, as is a better understanding of the librarian's role. A closer association between the two groups was deemed de- sirable to fulfill the educational and re- search functions of the university. CONCLUSION The survey revealed that faculty at the University of Manitoba perceive librarians mainly in terms of their service role. The results confirmed a relatively high rate of interaction between faculty and librarians, a positive outlook on the usefulness of li- brarians, and the value of their present and future subject expertise. It is therefore disconcerting that in spite of these find- ings, librarians are not commonly viewed as contributing greatly to the overall edu- cational process. The support function is further emphasized by the general opin- ion that University of Manitoba librarians are professionals rather than academics. This seems to imply that faculty members do not recognize the academic role that li- brarians are contractually obliged to fulfill. In particular, the pure and applied sci- ences consistently gave evidence of their poor opinion of librarians. As many of the comments and hesita- tions in the answers to the "usefulness" and ''subject background'' questions in- dicate, faculty in all disciplines are often not aware of what the librarians actually do and what specific benefits could be de- rived from the various services offered. There exists widespread confusion as to who among the library personnel are actu- ally the professionally trained and edu- cated colleagues. This reflects the blurred picture offered by a large academic library, where many important functions are per- formed by nonprofessional personnel. With increasing budget restraints, this problem is not likely to disappear. In January 1987 many ways, it is not surprising that the su- pervisory employee behind the circulation desk or in charge of interlibrary loan should impress both faculty and students as being a librarian. It seems that anyone "in charge" of a particular area emanates this impression more readily than some- one who fulfills less noticeable activities such as collection development or catalog- ing. These tasks involve commendable but not as easily recognized abilities for the acquisition, organization, or retrieval of library materials. The difference be- tween the professional and the nonprofes- sional often lies precisely in a wider scope of knowledge and a sounder understand- ing of the library's goals. As long as the faculty are themselves ill-informed about the latter, they cannot be expected to ap- preciate the librarians' contribution as fully as would be desirable. To correct these misconceptions, efforts should be made to inform the faculty more adequately of the librarian's potential. Faculty should be made aware that librari- ans will respond to their immediate infor- mation needs, but also have a responsibil- ity to fulfill the long-term goals of the institution. More awareness would pro- mote a deeper understanding of what fac- ulty and librarians can achieve together in their efforts to provide high-quality edu- cation at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Increased interaction through con- sultation, committees, and workshops might well result in a different perception of the librarian's research, teaching, and management responsibilities. Faculty might come to recognize that the librarian's research is not a futile activity, but rather a legitimate contribution to an academic field of knowledge. Further- more, the research process allows first- hand experience of library services, and thus may lead to valuable suggestions as to how to improve them. Library instruction most closely paral- lels the teaching component of faculty du- ties. One could therefore expect that bib- liographic instruction would be recognized by faculty as kindred to their activities. However, few are aware of this function, or view it as an area where librar- ian.s demonstrate their speci~ information skills. In order to develop it further, librar- ians should lobby to teach bibliography courses presently on the curriculum. This would result in a closer working relation- ship with faculty and might increase the acceptance of librarians as academics. Since research and teaching are not widely accepted by faculty as academic re- sponsibilities of librarians, it is surprising to see that the management role, which is related to librarians' professionalism, is even less acknowledged. Many librarians have administrative responsibilities, and with the general trend toward automa- tion, management is likely to become in- creasingly more important. While re- Faculty Perceptions 35 search and teaching foster dialogue with faculty, management is less conducive to such interaction. Therefore, librarians must strive to impress through their effec- tiveness in this area. The study clearly demonstrates that the functions of research, teaching, and man- agement play a negligible role in the Uni- versity of Manitoba faculty's perceptions of librarians. While the service function will always remain important, librarians must take an active role in promoting their image through sound research, formal teaching, and effective management. This will improve the librarians' chances to be- come fully accepted by their faculty peers. REFERENCES 1. M. Kathy Cook, "Rank, Status and Contribution of Academic Librarians as Perceived by Teaching Faculty at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale," College & Research Libraries 42:214-23 (May 1981). 2. John Budd and Patricia Coutant, Faculty Perceptions of Librarians: A Suroey (Betheseda, Md .: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 215 697, 1981). 3. Cook, "Rank, Status and Contribution," p.221.