College and Research Libraries The Academic Librarian and Faculty Status in the 1980s: A Survey of the Literature Kee DeBoer and Wendy Culotta The status of librarians has changed over the past several years and continues to change. The authors have created a composite profile of the current academic librarian based on a survey of the library literature of the 1980s. Specific topics considered were faculty versus academic sta- tus, criteria used for evaluation, tenure, support for research, sabbaticals and released time, pressure for publishing, and productivity in publishing. Librarians' attitudes toward faculty status at the present time were considered, as were some questions about the future. acuity status for academic li- brarians continues to be a hot topic. Much has been written about it during the past twenty- five years. After years of discussion, ACRL adopted Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians in 1971, but that did not end the discussion. Arti- cles continue to appear in the professional literature on all sides of the issue. But just where do we stand at the present time? Are we truly faculty members? Do we have tenure? Who evaluates us? What cri- teria are used in the evaluations? Is there pressure to publish? How much publish- ing have we been doing? Where do we publish? Do we get the time and financial support needed for our research? Is it all worth the benefits we receive as faculty members? The ideal way to find answers to such questions would be to conduct a survey of all the academic librarians in the country. The magnitude of such an undertaking is too overwhelming to contemplate. In- stead, the authors reviewed the profes- sional literature to find surveys published in the 1980s. The data compiled in those more limited studies were merged to de- velop a composite picture of the general situation. This is not a scientific study with a carefully balanced sampling of all types of libraries. In fact, it is somewhat weighted in favor of ARL libraries, be- cause more studies have been made of those libraries than of any other group. Small, academic libraries are probably un- derrepresented. In spite of the limitations, a profile drawn from the professional liter- ature should prove useful. If we can deter- mine our present status with its advan- tages and disadvantages, we can better know where we want to go in the future. In order to make the composite picture as up-to-date as possible, the authors con- sidered only articles written in the 1980s, although much of the literature published prior to 1980 is still relevant. Background reading for the earlier period can be found by consulting Virgil Massman's excellent book Faculty Status for Librarians. 1 Bibliog- raphies contained in articles written by Fred Bate and Gaby Divay3 cover the liter- ature of the interim period from Mass- man's book (1972) until1980. Because of the numerous referrals to the authors of the various studies included in this survey, the authors found it less cum- bersome and repetitious to refer only to the first author of each article. Exceptions Kee DeBoer was Coordinator of Reference and Wendy Culotta is Online Coordinator at the California State Uni- versity, Long Beach, California, 90840. 215 216 College & Research Libraries have been made when there are two arti- cles by the same author. Readers should examine the references for complete infor- mation about authorship of the articles. TERMINOLOGY One of the most striking impressions of the review relating to faculty status for li- brarians in the 1980s is the great variation among responses. Part of the reason for the divergence lies in the differences in in- terpretation of terms. Some writers sepa- rated faculty status from academic status, and some did not. There was also confu- sion in the minds of some librarians who answered the questionnaires. They did not always know what benefits were avail- able to them. In some cases, librarians in the same institution gave very different answers to the same questions. What is faculty status? What is academic status? Some people use the terms inter- changeably, but to others there are dis- tinct differences. Sewell differentiated be- tween the two terms. "With faculty status, or full faculty · status as it is some- times referred to, librarians accept all the rules, regulations, procedures and bene- fits of the teaching faculty in a strict sense .... With academic status, librari- ans enjoy some but not all of the privileges of the teaching faculty but do not hold rank.''4 Faculty status as defined by ACRL' s Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians (quoted in part) would include the following: 5 1. Each librarian should be assigned general responsibilities within his particu- lar area of competence. He should have . maximum possible latitude in fulfilling these responsibilities. 2. College and university libraries should adopt an academic form of gover- nance. 3. Librarians should be eligible for membership in the academic senate or equivalent body at their college or univer- sity on the same basis as other faculty. 4. The salary scale for librarians should be the same as that for other academic cat- egories with equivalent education and ex- perience. May 1987 5. Librarians should be covered by ten- ure provisions the same as those of other faculty. 6. Librarians should be promoted through ranks and steps on the basis of their academic proficiency and profes- sional effectiveness. A peer review system similar to that used by other faculty is the primary basis of judgment in the promo- tion process for academic librarians. 7. Sabbatical and other research leaves should be available to librarians on the same basis, and with the same require- ments, as they are to other faculty. 8. Librarians should have access to funding for research projects on the same basis as other faculty. 9. Librarians in colleges and universi- ties must have the protection of academic freedom. Several, but not all, of the criteria will be considered. Only information available in the literature was included, and some ar- eas have not been reported in the surveys of library situations. FACULTY STATUS John DePew's comment that "almost 79% of the academic libraries now have some sort of faculty status"6 is often cited. Tassin found that 80% of the librarians in his survey of 35 state universities in the southwestern United States had faculty status or equivalency. 7 In a survey of 188 college and university libraries in New York State, Benedict reported that most or all librarians in 72% of the responding li- braries had faculty status. 8 Fred Hill sur- veyed 51 librarians picked at random from The American Libraries Directory and found that 61% claimed to have faculty status. 9 More than half (25 of 44) of the libraries in Greg Byerly's survey of Ohio colleges and universities reported faculty status. When the author analyzed the benefits available at each institution, however, he found that only 11 of the schools actually provided librarians with all of the benefits of teaching facult~; the others gave "most of the benefits." 1 The Academic Status Survey published by College & Research Libraries News re- ported that 44% of the libraries surveyed j The Academic Librarian and Faculty Status 217 by ACRL claimed to have full faculty sta- tus for librarians. 11 The breakdown by cat- egory was: ARL libraries University libraries Four-year college libraries Two-year college libraries 30% 34% 26% 72% Payne's survey of 49 non-ARL libraries showed 59 with full faculty status. 12 W. Be de Mitchell surveyed 138 directors of CRL libraries and reported that 36% had faculty status for librarians equivalent to that of teaching faculty. However, when private institutions were separated from public universities, the figures were quite different: 88% of the public institutions and only 12% of the private schools granted librarians faculty status. 13 · Three separate studies reported on fac- ulty status in various schools that are members of ARL. The figures reported were: All Schools Public Private Rayman14 35% Hom15 48% 64% 20% . English16 46% 61.4% 18.7% TENURE There was not so much disparity be- tween the figures reported by various au- thors on the topic of tenure as there was on faculty status. The percentage of uni- versities granting tenure to librarians ranged from 42.7% to 61%: All Schools Public Private ARL (English)17 42.7% New Jersey (Reel- ing)18 48% 67% 22% Ohio (Byerly)19 48% 90% 30% ARL (Rayman)20 57% New York (Bene- dict)21 58% CRL (Mitchell)22 58.7% Non-ARL (Payne)23 61% EVALUATION Two major articles about peer evalua- tion of librarians (Judy Horn and Karen Smith and Gemma DeVinney) were both based on surveys of librarians at ARL li- braries. Smith and DeVinney stated that 94% of the librarians answering their sur- vey (530 librarians in large academic li- braries) had peer review of some sort that culminated in a decision by the library di- rector. Review committees at 14 of the li- braries used faculty-wide committees while 17 relied on committees composed of library peers. 24 Horn agreed that peer review has be- come the norm. Sixty-seven percent of the librarians in her sample have peer review. Twenty-six of the 36 responding libraries use committees composed of librarians for the review; the others use a faculty com- mittee. In addition to a review by a com- mittee of peers, librarians are also evalu- ated by administrators (supervisors, department heads, deans, vice chancel- lors, provosts). 25 Librarians in 93% of the Rocky Moun- tain survey had the opportunity for peer review for tenure, 26 63% of the New Jersey sam~le, 27 and 46% of the New York librari- ans. 8 At the low end of the range are Nancy Emmicks's study reporting 33% with peer review29 and the Ohio study, which found that only 23% of the libraries provided that opportunity. 30 . CRITERIA USED FOR EVALUATION Only in the Rocky Mountain area were the majority of librarians (70%) judged on the same tenure criteria as are the teaching faculty, and even in that group there were dramatic differences. In New Mexico, 87% of the librarians reported identical tenure requirements, while only 8% of the Ar- izona librarians reported that the same cri- teria were used for librarians and for the teaching faculty. 31 The other studies re- ported that criteria for librarians were dif- ferent from those of teaching faculty, or if the same standards were used, were mod- ified to reflect the unique role of librari- ans. 32,33,34,35 Job performance is still the top priority in librarian evaluation according to Em- mick36 and Karen Smith and Tamara Frost. 37 Several authors saw research and publication as increasingly important cri- teria for evaluation but not so important as other aspects of the job. Smith and Frost's 218 College & Research Libraries study of 33 ARL libraries ranked publica- tions as the second most important crite- rion, 38 while Emmick's paper surveying 367 U.S. and Canadian libraries ranks re- search/publication fifth after job perfor- mance, supervisory evaluation, active professional membership, and continuing education. 39 Although publication was en- couraged for promotion and tenure in many libraries, few universities actually required librarians to publish according to Ronald Rayman40 and Joyce Payne, 41 but Mitchell found that 46.9% of the libraries queried required evidence of publica- tion.42 The importance of research and publica- tion is shown in Mitchell's study of tenure approval rates over a five-year period in 38 universities. Of the 329 librarians apply- ing for tenure during that time period, 61 or 18.5% were denied tenure. Thirty-five of the 61 denials were based on an inade- quate record of research and publication and 21 for inadequate job performance. 43 SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES An almost universal complaint of librari- ans is lack of time for research. Payne con- tends that "Time is the one resource usu- ally not available to librarians. " 44 Every study that addressed work schedules re- ported that most librarians work thirty- five to forty hours a week, twelve months a year. Released time for professional develop- ment was available in many libraries but was sometimes to be used only for com- mittee work and conferences. 45.46 In the New York study, 67% of the librarians were eligible for released time for profes- sional duties, but only 20% could get it for research. 47 In the ARL studies, Rayman found that librarians in 51% of his sample had research time available, 48 while Payne reported 46%. 49 Reeling reported that 90% of the librarians in the New Jersey group were eligible for released time for profes- · sional activity, 50 but there was no indica- tion if that included time for research. Emmick studied the amount of time available to librarians for professional de- velopment. After studying 367 libraries, she concluded that most libraries grant May 1987 somewhere between 1% and 5% of a li- brarian's time for all forms of professional development. 51 That equates to twenty- four minutes to two hours a week. Nine- or ten-month appointments are available at a small number of libraries. The option was available in 6.1% of Pay- ne's non-ARL libraries, 52 in 6.7% of the Ohio group, 53 16% of the New York li- braries,5418% of Reeling's New Jersey sur- vey,55 and 25% of English's ARL universi- ties. 56 SABBATICALS Librarians in the Rocky Mountain re- gion reported the highest figure in the cat- egory of sabbaticals. Other surveys re- ported that librarians were eligible for sabbaticals in the following percentages of the samples: Rocky Mountains (Davidson)57 CRL (Mitchell)58 New Jersey (Reeling)59 New York (Benedict)60 ARL (Englisht1 Ohio (Byerly)62 85% 76 .3% 70% 64% 50% 49% Funding for research was available to the majority of librarians in the composite sample, more often from the university rather than from the library. Reeling found that only 40% of the New Jersey li- braries surveyed made research funds available, 63 but higher figures were re- ported in other surveys: New York (Benedict)64 Ohio (Byerly)65 Non-ARL (Payne)66 ARL (English)67 ARL (Rayman)68 Rocky Mountains (Davidson)69 CRL (Mitchellf0 55% 58% 71% 72% 74% 80% 89.5% Travel funds may be even more readily available. Both Byerly and English re- ported that all of the universities that make travel money available to teaching facult~ also make it available to librari- ans.71' 2 PRODUCTIVITY IN PUBLISHING Although emphasis on publishing and the number of articles by academic librari- ans have both increased in recent years, 73 output by individual librarians remains -, -· • The Academic Librarian and Faculty Status 219 low. In John Olsgaard' s study of librarians whom he considered to be successful, the career publication rate was 1.5 publica- tions per librarian (2.0 publications for each man; 1.1 for each woman). 74 Smith and Frost found that half of the librarians in their sample had not published at the time they received tenure/5 but, in some cases, tenure was awarded several years earlier, and the sitl;lation in the 1980s may be different. Payne found that approxi- mately 25% of academic librarians were ~n&~ged ,in some sort of publication activ- Ity. When comparing pre- and post-tenure rates of publication, Paula Watson77 and Smith and Frose8 failed to find any signifi- cant difference in the rate of publication. Sylvia Krausse traced patterns of publica- tion by academic librarians in 12 general academic library journals over a ten-year period. With a range of 1 to 14, the mean number of articles per librarian was 1.4 ar- ticles in the ten-year period. 79 Seventy- eight percent of the librarians represented had one publication in that time span. Those librarians may have also published books or articles in journals not reviewed by the study, so these figures do not nec- essarily provide a complete picture. Two studies were made using similar methodology but using different lists of journals. John and Jane Olsgaard re- viewed authorship in 5 general library journals. Martha Adamson followed the same model but chose specialized library journals. The findings were similar in the two studies: proportionately, women li- brarians publish less than do men in the li- brary field. While 94% of academic librari- ans are women, only 61.5% of the articles analyzed by Olsgaard and Olsgaard were published by women. Men, who make up 16% of the profession, published 38.5% of the articles. 80 Adamson found a slightly higher rate for women: 43.7% women, 56.3% men. 81 Krausse found that librarians at large li- braries publish more than do librarians at smaller institutions. More than half of the articles surveyed were written by librari- ans working in libraries with holdings of one million volumes or more. 82 Krausse hypothesizes that the greater productivity of librarians in large libraries may be ex- plained by the availability of more exten- sive research resources and also because librarians often have a narrower range of responsibilities than do librarians in smaller institutions. FAVORED JOURNALS FOR PUBLICATIONS Payne contends that the form of publica- tion is less significant than is the fact of publication. 83 Although in the past prefer- ential treatment was given to publication in the field of librarianship, that has changed. At the present time, publica- tions in the library field and those in sub- ject disciplines are equally acceptable, ac- cordin~ to Priscilla Geahigan 84 and Payne. Rayman found that 2libraries in his sample required publication to be in the library field, while 8 had no such re- quirement. 86 Mitchell presented compara- tive statistics on the acceptability of vari- ous types of publications within the library/information science field and those outside it. Most of the surveyed libraries gave credit for books, chapters in books, articles in refereed or nonrefereed jour- nals, conference papers, and book re- views, whether or not the subject matter was library related. Almost every library (97.4%) gave credit for articles in refereed journals in the area of library/information science, while 89.5% gave credit for such publications in other fields. For articles in nonrefereed journals, the figures were 89.5% for librarx-related materials, 68.4% for other areas. Krausse examined more than 4,000 arti- cles published in 12 general academic journals to see which journals were pre- ferred by academic librarian authors. The favored journals were College & Research Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Library Resources & Technical Services, and RQ. 88 Nearly 30% of all publications by ac- ademic librarians appeared in College & Re- search Libraries or Journal of Academic Librar- ianship.89 AlTITUDE TOWARD FACULTY STATUS Faculty status continues to be controver- sial. In Batt's opinion, faculty status for li- · 220 College & Research Libraries brarians can be more of a liability than a help. 90 Some librarians feel that although they have increasingly taken on the re- sponsibilities that accompany faculty sta- tus, they have not received the full bene- fits of it. Russ Davidson91 and DePew92 reported some dissatisfaction with the re- sponsibilities and requirements that ac- com~any faculty status. English93 and Hill both suggested the possibility that the trend toward faculty status for librari- ans has peaked and has started to fall back slightly. Some libraries are looking for al- ternatives. 95 In contrast to the articles discussing problems and doubts about faculty status, Robert Sewell's article recounts a success story. The University of Illinois at Urbana has instituted complete faculty status with positive results. Sewell's assessment: ''Li- brarians involved in their university com- munity, research and professional activi- ties, are better able to confront their library work than those who remain insulated within their own libraries. The benefits of faculty status accrue not only to individual librarians, but also to their libraries and universities. " 96 Other libraries may have had similar experiences but have not yet reported them in the professional litera- ture of the 1980s. PROFILE What conclusions can be drawn from this mass of information and statistics? What characteristics does the typical li- brarian in the 1980s have? According to the literature reviewed, the typical librar- ian would • have some type of faculty or academic status, but perhaps not full faculty status; • have tenure if employed at a state uni- versity, but not if at a private school; • almost certainly be evaluated by peers; • be encouraged to publish, but would not be required to do so; • be evaluated on job performance above all other criteria; • work thirty-five to forty hours a week, twelve months a year; • have little released time, probably none for research; • have published approximately one ar- May 1987 tide (slightly more if a man) in either Col- lege & Research Libraries or Journal of Aca- demic Librarianship; and • be having a few doubts that faculty status is the best alternative for librarians. The profile gives us some indication of where we are now. Librarians continue to move toward faculty status but are still in a period of transition. In many universities, librarians are being asked to add research and publication to their already busy schedules, but, in many cases, the li- braries are not able to provide them with the time and support they need. THE FUTURE? Where do we go from here? At the present time it is difficult to determine if full faculty status is the best system avail- able because it has not been tested ade- quately with all .of its benefits and all of its responsibilities. The University of lllinois at Urbana has reported good results in its implementation of faculty status for librar- ians, but can the experience of one library be generalized to other institutions? There are still questions to be answered. If librarians are to be evaluated on the same basis as are teaching faculty, we need to know more about what will be ex- pected of us. Will doctorates or second master's degrees be required? How much publication is required for tenure and pro- motion? Can present attention to library service ideals be maintained if librarians focus more directly on their own research projects? It would be helpful to have more studies of the experiences in various universities as more of us move toward faculty status. Mitchell's study listed reasons for rejec- tions of tenure applications in ARL schools. 97 Additional studies on that topic would be helpful, as well as studies on such topics as pre- versus post-tenure pro- ductivity, comparisons of schedules of teaching faculty and library faculty, scheduling problems resulting from flexi- ble work hours, and other related sub- jects. Since January 1, 1985, the California State University system, consisting of nineteen campuses, has had a collective bargaining agreement with its faculty, in- The Academic Librarian and Faculty Status 221 eluding librarians. Tenure, peer review, sabbaticals, and travel funds are available to all faculty, an~ all are on the same salary schedule. It is too early for an analysis of this development, but in a few years it will be interesting to see whether all faculty are evaluated on the same criteria or if adjust- ments are made to allow for differences in job responsibility. Further reports on faculty status, both positive and negative, would be useful to librarians across the country. Academic li- brarians are continuing to search for the system that will function most effectively in individual libraries. We can profit from the experiences of our colleagues. REFERENCES 1. Virgil F. Massman, Faculty Status for Librarians (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1972). 2. Fred Batt, ''Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: Justified or Just a Farce?'' in Issues in Academic Librarianship: Views and Case Studies for the 1980s and 1900s, ed. Peter Spyers-Duran and Thomas W. Mann, Jr. (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1985), p.115-28. 3. Gaby Divay and Carol Steer, "Academic Librarians Can Be Caught by the Pressure to Do Re- search," Canadian Library Journal40:91-95 (Apr. 1983). 4. Robert G. Sewell, "Faculty Status and Librarians: The Rationale and the Case of illinois," College & Research Libraries 44.:212-22 (May 1983). 5. Association of College and Research Libraries, "Standards for Faculty Status for College and Uni- versity Librarians," College & Research Libraries News 33:210-12 (Sept. 1972). 6. John N. DePew, "The ACRL Standards for Faculty Status: Panacea or Placebo?" College & Research Libraries 44:407-13 (Nov. 1983). 7. Anthony G. Tassin, "Faculty Status for Librarians: Progress and Perplex," LLA Bulletin 47:83-86 (Fall1984). 8. Marjorie A. Benedict, Jacquelyn A. Gavaryck, and Hanan C. Selvin, "Status of Academic Librari- ans in New York State," College & Research Libraries 44:12-19 Oan. 1983). 9. Fred E. Hill and Robert Hauptman, "A New Perspective on Faculty Status," College & Research Libraries 47:156-59 (Mar. 1986). • 10. Greg Byerly, "The Faculty Status of Academic Libraries in Ohio," College & Research Libraries 41:422-29 (Sept. 1980). ~ : 11. "Academic Status Survey," College & Research Libraries News a:1n Oune 1981). 12. Joyce Payne and Janet Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," College & Research Libraries 45:133-39 (Mar. 1984). 13. W. Bede Mitchell and L. Stanislave Swieszkowski, "Publication Requirements and Tenure Ap- proval Rates: An Issue for Academic Librarians,'' College & Research Libraries 46:249-55 (May 1985). 14. Ronald Rayman and Frank William Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements in Univer- sity Libraries," College & Research Libraries 41:43-48 Oan. 1980). 15. Judy Hom, "Peer Review for Librarians and Its Applications in ARL Libraries," in Academic Li- braries: Myths and Realities (Chicago: Assn. of College and Research Libraries, 1984), p.125-40. 16. Thomas G. English, "Librarian Status in the Eighty-Nine U.S. Academic Institutions of the Asso- ciation of Research Libraries: 1982," College & Research Libraries 44:199-211 (May 1983). 17. Ibid., p.204. 18. Patricia Reeling and Beryl K. Smith, "Faculty Status: A Realistic Survey," New Jersey Libraries 16:17-25 (Fall1983). 19. Byerly, "The Faculty Status of Academic Librarians in Ohio,"p.425. 20. Rayman and Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements," p.45. 21. Benedict, Gavaryck, and Selvin, "Status of Academic Librarians," p.16. 22. Mitchell and Swieszkowski, "Publication Requirements," p.251. 23. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p.134. 24. Karen F. Smith and Gemma DeVinney, "Peer Review for Academic Librarians," Journal of Aca- demic Librarianship 10:87-91 (May 1984). 25. Hom, "Peer Review for Librarians," p.138. 26. Russ Davidson, Connie Capers Thorson, and Diane Stine, "Faculty Status for Librarians: Query- ing the Troops," College & Research Libraries 44:414-20 (Nov. 1983). 27. Reeling and Smith, "Faculty Status: A Realistic Survey," p.21. 28. Benedict, Gavaryck, and Selvin, "Status of Academic Librarians," p.16. 222 College & Research Libraries May 1987 29. Nancy J. Emmick, "Release Time for Professional Development: How Much for Research?" in Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities (Chicago: Assn. of College & Research Libraries, 1984), p.l24-34. 30. Byerly, "The Faculty Status of Academic Librarians in Ohio," p.424. 31. Davidson, Thorson, and Stine, "Faculty Status for Librarians," p.418. ~ 32. Byerly, "The Faculty Status of Academic Librarians in Ohio," p.425. 33. English, "Librarian Status," p.204. 34. Hom, "Peer Review for Librarians," p.136. 35. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p.137. ... 36. Emmick, ''Release Time for Professional Development,'' p .131. 37. Karen F. Smith, Tamara U. Frost, Amy Lyons, and Mary Reichel, "Tenured Librarians in Large University Libraries," College & Research Libraries 45:91-98 (Mar. 1984). 38. Ibid., p.97. 39. Emmick, "Release Time for Professional Development," p.131. 40. Rayman and Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements," p.45. 41. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p.l37. 42. Mitchell and Swieszkowski, "Publication Requirements," p.252. • 43. Ibid. 44. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p.139. 45. Davidson, Thorson, and Stine, "Faculty Status for Librarians," p.417. 46. Emmick, "Research Time for Professional Development," p.131. ... 47. Benedict, Gavaryck, and Selvin, "Status of Academic Librarians," p.16. 48. Rayman and Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements," p.45. 49. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p.l34. 50. Reeling and Smith, "Faculty Status: A Realistic Survey," p.21. " 51. Emmick, "Release Time for Professional Development," p.l31. 52. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p .137. 53. Byerly, "The Faculty Status of Academic Librarians in Ohio," p.425. 54. Benedict, Gavaryck, and Selvin, "Status of Academic Librarians," p.l6. 55. Reeling and Smith, "Faculty Status: A Realistic Survey," p.21. 56. English, "Librarian Status," p.204. 57. Davidson, Thorson, and Stine, "Faculty Status for Librarians," p.419. 58. Mitchell and Swieszkowski, "Publication Requirements," p.253. 59. Reeling and Smith, "Faculty Status: A Realistic Survey," p.21. 60. Benedict, Gavaryck, and Selvin, "Status of Academic Librarians," p.l6. ) 61. English, "Librarian Status," p.204. 62. Byerly, "The Faculty Status of Academic Librarians in Ohio," p.426. 63. Reeling and Smith, "Faculty Status : A Realistic Survey," p.21. 64. Benedict, Gavaryck, and Selvin, "Status of Academic Librarians," p.16. l 65. Byerly, "The Faculty Status of Academic Librarians in Ohio," p.426. 66. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p.136. 67. English, "Librarian Status," p.204. 68. Rayman and Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements," p.45. 1 69. Davidson, Thorson, and Stine, "Faculty Status for Librarians," p.419. 70. Mitchell and Swieszkowski, "Publication Requirements," p.253. 71. Byerly, "The Faculty Status of Academic Librarians in Ohio," p.426. 72. English, "Librarian Status," p.21. 73. Sylvia C. Krausse and Janice F. Sieburth, "Patterns of Authorship in Library Journals by Aca- demic Librarians," Serials Librarian 9:127-38 (Spring 1985). 74. John N. Olsgaard, "Characteristics of 'Success' among Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries 45:5- 14 (Jan. 1984). 75. Smith, Frost, Lyons, and Reichel, "Tenured Librarians," p.96. 76. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p .138. 77. Paula D. Watson, "Production of Scholarly Articles by Academic Librarians and Library School Faculty," College & Research Libraries 46:334-42 (July 1985). 78. Smith, Frost, Lyons, and Reichel, "Tenured Librarians," p.96. 79. Krausse and Sieburth, "Patterns of Authorship," p.137. 80. John N. Olsgaard and Jane Kinch Olsgaard, "Authorship in Five Library Periodicals," College & Research Libraries 41:49-53 (Jan. 1980). 81. Martha C. Adamson and Gloria J. Zamora, "Publishing in Library Science Journals: A Test of the The Academic Librarian and Faculty Status 223 Olsgaard Profile," College & Research Libraries 42:235-41 (May 1981). 82. Krausse and Sieburth, "Patterns of Authorship," p.132. 83. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p.138. 84. Priscilla Geahigan, Harriet Nelson, Stewart Saunders, and Lawrence Woods, "Acceptability of Non-Library/Information Science Publications in the Promotion and Tenure of Academic Librari- ans," College & Research Libraries 42:571-75 (Nov. 1981). 85. Payne and Wagner, "Librarians, Publication, and Tenure," p.l38. 86. Rayman and Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements," p.45. 87. Mitchell and Swieszkowski, "Publication Requirements," p.252-53. 88. Krausse and Sieburth, "Patterns of Authorship," p.134-35. 89. Ibid., p.134. 90. Batt, "Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: Justified or Just a Farce?," p.115. 91. Davidson, Thorson, and Stine, "Faculty Status for Academic Librarians," p.419. 92. DePew, "The ACRL Standards for Faculty Status," p.407-13. 93. English, "Librarian Status," p.205. 94. Hill and Hauptman, "A New Perspective on Faculty Status," p.157. 95. Joan M. Bechtel, "Academic Professional Status: An Alternative for Librarians," Journal of Aca- demic Librarianship 11:289-92 (Nov. 1985). 96. Sewell, "Faculty Status and Librarians," p.221. 97. Mitchell and Swieszkowski, "Publication Requirements," p.252.