College and Research Libraries Research Notes The Status of Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: A Twenty-year Perspective Charles B. Lowry In 1990, data on the employment status of librarians was collected from two groups of academic libraries in higher education-ll random sample of all institu- tions in the United States and all academic members of the Association of Research Libraries. This data provides a twenty-year retrospective of librarians' status and indicates that 67 percent of higher education institutions grant them faculty status. In general, faculty status for librarians has been vigorously expanded during the same period, though the process has slowed in recent years. Understandably, librar- ians with faculty status evince perquisites similar, but not identical to, teaching faculty. In addition, 7.3 percent of the institutions sampled grant librarians academic status, which carries many characteristics of fizculty status. Thus in over 7 4 percent of the sampled institutions, librarians have a status that conforms closely to the ACRL standard. Among the ARL members, the general condition has changed little since the last major survey in 1982. m or several years, the Associa-tion of College & Research Li-braries (ACRL) Academic Status Committee discussed the possibility of a general survey of librarians' employment status in higher education similar to that undertaken for the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) by Thomas English and published in College & Research Libraries in 1982.1 At the ALA Annual Conference in 1989, a number of current or former committee members were brought together by the chair, Larry R. Oberg: This group de- termined to undertake a study to in- vestigate the status of faculty status for librarians near the twentieth anni- versary of the first publication of the ACRL-AAUP Joint Statement on Faculty Status.2 Charles B. Lowry is University Librarian at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213-3890. The research for this article was conducted while he was Director of Libraries at the University of Texas at Arlington. * Oberg appointed a committee to undertake the research that led to this paper. The committee included Irene Hoadley of Texas A & M University, Rush Miller of Bowling Green University, Susan Perry of Stanford, Larry Oberg of Willamette University, and the author. 163 164 College & Research Libraries TABLE1 ALA/MLS CONDITION FOR JOB: CARNEGIE SAMPLE Frequency % Always 227 62.0 A few exceptions 103 28.1 Not used 36 9.8 Are ACRL Standards Used? Frequency % Explicitly 23 6.5 Reference point 178 50.3 Not used 153 43.2 The Academic Status Committee (ASC) subcommittee ultimately chose not to rep- lica te English's study, although the present effort takes inspiration from the earlier work. It was decided instead to study all types of academic libraries, as well as those that were members of ARL. The study was also inspired by the hope that the results would inform ASC's work of revising the Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians for the first time in that document's history. That revi- sion was completed by the committee and approved by the ACRL Executive Board at the 1991 ALA Annual Conference in Atlanta and by the ALA Council at the 1993 Midwinter Meeting. The full results of the study will be presented in a collection being edited by the author, tentatively titled Faculty Status in Academic Libraries: Empirical Studies of Librarians' Status. The methodology and survey instrument will be discussed fully therein. Accordingly, in this paper only a few words will be said about the survey instrument, and the sam- pling and return rates. Instead, emphasis is placed upon the high points of the analysis of the survey results. The questionnaire is composed of twelve questions with slightly over fifty data elements and was intended to take about twenty minutes to answer. It in- vestigated library staff size, gender dis- tribution, the status of librarians at the responding institution, changes in that status over twenty years, and various perquisites and responsibilities of librar- ians related to such things as promo- March 1993 tions, the review process, and the term of service. The survey was distributed to library directors in two distinct groups of libraries. One is a sample of 500 librar- ies drawn at random from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Edu- cation. The other is composed of the aca- demic members of the ARLin the United States and Canada. 3 The research group had the assistance of the ACRL office and distributed the survey under its auspices. In retrospect, this association seems important be- cause it resulted in 370 respondents to the first sample, a 74 percent return rate, and 89 respondents among ARL librar- ies, or 7 4 percent of the academic mem- bership. Coincidently, this is exactly the same number achieved by English in his study. The high response rate to the Car- negie sample inspired confidence in some of the results that differ from other studies. However, this essay will largely omit reference to earlier works; that will be reserved for the fuller discussion to be published in the monograph. Some analysis was done with refer- ence to ALA's success in establishing standards for the employment of librar- ians in academic institutions (see table 1). The survey asked if the ALA-ac- credited M.L.S. was a condition for em- ployment of professional' librarians. It found that in 62 percent of the cases it was always a condition, and that in 28 percent only a few exceptions were made based on specialized job require- ments. Thus, only 10 percent of the insti- tutions surveyed failed to adopt the terminal M.L.S. degree as the basic re- quirement for employment in a pro- fessional position. Conversely, the respondents indicate that the ACRL Stan- dards for Faculty Status of College and Uni- versity Librarians and the ACRL/ AAUP Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians were used ex- plicitly as the basis for defining the sta- tus of librarians in only 6 percent of the cases. These standards are a point of ref- erence, but do not explicitly define status in 50 percent of the cases. Clearly, the authority of these two standards has yet to be established in most institutions. Faculty Status for Academic Librarians 165 TABLE2 LIBRARIANS' STATUS FOR CARNEGIE INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND ARL SAMPLES Institutional Faculty Academic Professional Civil Classification Status Status Status Service Total Research/ Frequency 15 7 6 0 28 doctoral Row% 53.57 25.00 21.43 0.00 7.57% Comprehensive Frequency 65 5 11 3 84 university Row% 77.38 5.95 13.10 3.57 22.70% Liberal arts Frequency 49 11 26 0 86 Row% 56.98 12.79 30.23 0.00 23.24% Two-year Frequency 119 4 46 3 172 Row% 69.19 2.33 26.74 1.74 46.49% Total Carnegie Frequency 248 27 89 6 370 samEle SamEle% 67.03% 7.30% 24.05% 1.62% 100.00% ARLmember Frequency 41 30 18 0 89 samEle SamEle% 46.07% 33.71% 20.22% 0 100.00% Note: Association of Research Libraries members form a separate sample group, albeit research/ doctoral institutions include some ARL members who were drawn into the random sample of all Carnegie institutions. LIBRARIAN STATUs-THE NATIONAL CONDITION One of the rna jor focuses of this re- search concerns the employment status of librarians. The good news for ad vo- cates of the ACRL standards is that a majority of librarians work under em- ployment conditions defined by faculty status. Table 2 indicates that librarians in the Carnegie classification research/ doc- toral granting institutions have faculty sta- tus over 53 percent of the time, in comprehensive universities over 77 per- cent, in liberal arts colleges nearly 57 per- cent, and in two-year institutions nearly 70 percent. In the aggregate, academic librar- ianshavefacultystatusin67percentofour institutions of higher education. These results vary markedly from the results of other surveys. For instance, a 1989 study by Betsy Park and Robert Riggs that sampled the same Carnegie institutions at about the same time as the ASC survey indicates that librarians have faculty status in 41 percent of the sampled four-year institutions.4 This is a dramatically lower result than the general sample even though this sample excluded consideration of two-year in- stitutions. Among the four-year liberal arts colleges, the result was 57 percent (see table 2). This large statistical differ- ence may be explained partially by the difference in definitions of faculty status. On the one hand, the present research assumes that the respondents know best the conditions that characterize faculty status in their own institutions and whether librarians are designated as fac- ulty by that institution's definition. On the other hand, the ARL member sample indicated that slightly more than 46 per- cent of the institutions responding granted librarians faculty status, a figure that is almost identical to the English study re- sult of 46 percent. 5 Even when librarians do not have fa- culty status, survey results indicate that they are frequently given a close parallel academic status. For instance, in theRe- search/Doctoral category, 25 percent of the libraries grant academic status. This means that nearly 80 percent of the institu- tions in this group grant faculty status or something very close to it. Results also show that academic librarians are least likely to be classified as civil service personnel, with less that 2 percent in that category. Overall, 74 percent of the Carnegie sample and 80 percent of the ARL sample grant faculty or academic status to librarians. It is also interesting to note the number of librarians affected by various status 166 College & Research Libraries March 1993 TABLE3 NUMBER OF LIBRARIANS IN STATUS GROUPS Professional/ Institutional Faculty Academic Administrative Civil Classification Status Status Status Service Total Research/ doctoral Frequency 461.8 379.5 152.3 0 993.6 (n=28) [n=35.5] Row% 46 38 15 0 36.3% Comprehensive university Frequency 607.0 67.0 111.7 16.3 802.0 (n=86) [n=9.3] Row% 76 8 14 2 29.3% Liberal arts Frequency 204.2 47.6 142.1 0 393.9 (n=860) [n=4.6] Row% 52 12 36 0 14.4% Two-year Frequency 369.5 15.5 149.6 13.3 547.9 (n=172) [n=3.2] Row% 67 3 27 2 20% Total Carnegie Sample Frequency 1642.5 509.6 555.7 29.6 2737.4 (370) [n=7.4) SamEle% 60% 18.5% 20.3% 1.1% 100% ARLmember sample Frequency 2171.4 2191.8 1506.0 NA 5869.2 (n=89) [n=65.9] Sample% 37% 37.3% 25.7% NA 100% Note: The number of libraries (n= ) is indicated for each institutional classification. For instance, there are 28 research/ doctoral libraries. The average number of librarians [n= ] per library is also indicated. assignments, not just the number of in- stitutions involved. The 370 responding institutions in the large Carnegie sample indicate that they hire over 2,700 librari- ans. Table 3 shows the number of librar- ians in the various status groups. The 28 research/ doctoral institutions constitute 7 percent of the total sample of libraries but hire 36 percent of the librarians in- volved. Among the research/ doctoral institutions, 53 percent grant faculty sta- tus to librarians, but the number of librarians affected is only 46 percent of this institutional category. The conclu- sion we may draw from this disparity is that major research libraries with larger professional staffs are less likely to grant faculty status. This same conclusion may be inferred from the ARL sample. Over 46 percent of the ARL libraries grant fa- culty status, but only 37 percent of the librarians in these libraries hold faculty status. Again, the explanation is that the oldest and largest research institutions are less likely to grant faculty status to librarians who represent both a newer profession than established disciplines and may not evince such primary faculty characteristics as regular classroom teaching and publication. In all, 1,642 librarians, or 60 percent of the total, are employed in institutions that grant fa- culty status to librarians. Table 4 illustrates the gender distribu- tion of librarians by their employment status. Female librarians are slightly more likely than their male counterparts to work in libraries where they are granted faculty status. This is true of both the Carnegie and the ARL samples. Yet males in the Carnegie sample libraries are slightly more likely to have academic status. These differences, however, are small. The most important findings il- lustrated by this table are that gender has no effect on the assignment of status to librarians, and that over 67 percent of all academic librarians are female. The percentage is slightly lower in ARL li- braries-65 percent. APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTION5-PERQUISITES AND OBLIGATIONS The following tables illustrate various conditions for librarian appointments and expectations for promotional con- siderations. Table 5 indicates the possible Faculty Status for Academic Librarians 167 TABLE4 GENDER DISTRIBUTION AND LIBRARIANS' STATUS Carnegie Sample ARLSample Librarians' Status Female Male Female Male Faculty status Frequency 1194.8 573.4 1466.0 777.5 Column% 65.7 64.2 39.5 38.7 Academic status Frequency 290.6 168.3 1380.2 728.0 Column% 16.0 18.8 37.2 36.2 Professional/ administrative Frequency 316.0 143.8 865.5 503.5 status Column% 17.4 16.1 23.3 25.1 Civil service Frequency 17 8 NA NA Column% 0.9 0.9 NA NA Total Sample Frequency 1818.5 893.5 3711.7 2009.0 Sample% 67.1% 32.9% 64.9% 35.1% length of appointments for librarians. Respondents were asked to indicate all possible categories. By and large, no matter what status is assigned to librar- ians, the prevalent answer was twelve months of service. The last column indi- cates that in nearly 74 percent of the faculty status libraries this was a condi- tion of appointment, as it was in over 96 percent of the libraries granting aca- demic status, and 84 percent of those granting professional or administrative status. However, it is significant that in cases of faculty status, nine-month ap- pointments are more characteristic. Nearly 32 percent of the faculty status institutions grant this term as an option for librarians, while only 15 percent of those granting academic status offer nine month appointments. On the one hand, it has long been clear that faculty status for librarians may not be accompanied by the full privileges of the teaching faculty. On the other hand, academic status often reflects some of the characteristics of appointments for teaching faculty. The present research strongly confirms attenuated status. Table 6 makes it obvious that the faculty status for librarians in the Carnegie sample is closely associated with tenure because over 68 percent of the faculty status institutions grant tenure to librar- ians. Among those same institutions, another 40 percent grant some sort of continuing appointment. Similarly, pro- motion in faculty rank is granted by over 62 percent of the faculty status institu- tions, and promotion in nonfaculty rank is granted by another 12 percent of these libraries. Research and sabbatical leaves are also closely affiliated with faculty sta- tus. Librarians who receive faculty status appointments enjoy a fuller participation in the characteristic perquisites for teach- ing faculty than do those receiving other types of appointments. The question of criteria for achieving tenure or continuing appointment al- ways has been complicated when ap- plied to librarians. Table 7 illustrates that in those Carnegie sample institutions where librarians have faculty status, the criteria are the same as those for teaching faculty in over 60 percent of the cases and are modified faculty criteria in another 31 percent. Yet where librarians have academic status, the criteria are the same as for the teaching faculty in only 14 percent of the cases and are modified faculty criteria in 33 percent. More than half of these Carnegie sample libraries have some sort of professional criteria. This pattern is also true of librarians who receive professional or administrative sta- tus appointments. In summary, the criteria for tenure or continuing appointment are much more closely associated with fac- ulty criteria where librarians have fac- ulty status. This conforms to the o~her characteristics of librarians with faculty status. TABLES 1-l 0\ LENGTH OF APPOINTMENT PERIODS FOR LIBRARIANS' STATUS: CARNEGIE SAMPLE (XI 9Months 10 Months 10.5 Months 11 Months 12 Months ("') Librarians' Status No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 0 = Faculty status tD Frequency 169 79 194 54 237 11 214 34 65 183 OQ Sample% 68.15 31.85 78.23 21.77 95.56 4.44 86.29 13.71 26.21 73.79 tD ~ Academic status Frequency 23 4 25 2 27 0 27 0 1 26 ~ Sample% 85.19 14.81 92.59 7.41 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 3.70 96.30 tD fll Professional/ Frequency 81 8 73 16 83 6 77 12 14 75 tD I» Administrative status Sample% 91.01 8.99 82.02 17.98 93.26 6.74 86.52 13.48 15.73 84.27 ... n Civil service Frequency 4 2 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 6 ::r roe Sample% 66.67 33.33 1.62 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 .... a'" Total Frequency 277 93 298 72 353 ·17 324 46 80 290 s Sample% 74.86% 25.14% 80.54% 19.46% 95.41% 4.59% 87.57% 12.43% 21.62% 78.38% ::!. tD Note: Respondents were asked to check all relevant categories. Therefore, total frequency and percentage exceed 370 Nand 100 percent and are not fll summative. TABLE6 APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION FOR LIBRARIANS' STATUS: CARNEGIE SAMPLE Promotion in Continuing Promotion in Non-Faculty Research Leave Sabbatical Librarians' Status Tenure Appointments Faculty Rank Rank Leave Total Faculty status Frequency 169 99 155 31 111 166 248 Row% 68.15 39.92 62.5 12.5 44.76 66.94 67.03% Academic status Frequency 3 17 4 11 9 9 27 Row% 11.11 62.96 14.81 40.74 33.33 33.33 7.30% Professional/ Frequency 5 40 9 18 17 22 89 Administrative status Row% 5.36 44.94 10.11 20.22 19.10 24.72 24.05% ~ Civil service Frequency 2 4 1 1 0 1 6 ~ Row% 33.33 66.67 16.67 16.67 0.00 16.67 1.62% ::r Total Frequency 179 160 169 61 137 198 370 1-l \0 \0 %N 48.38% 43.24% 45.68% 16.49% 37.03% 53.51% 100.00 til Note: Respondents were asked to check all relevant categories. Therefore, total frequency and percentage exceed 370 Nand 100 percent and are not summative. Faculty Status for Academic Librarians 169 TABLE 7 TENURE OR CONTINUING APPOINTMENT CRITERIA FOR LIBRARIANS' STATUS: CARNEGIE SAMPLE Teaching Librarians' Status Faculty Faculty status Frequency 137 Row% 60.89 Academic status Frequency 3 Row% 14.29 Professional/ administrative Frequency 13 status Row% 28.26 Civil service Frequency 2 Row% 66.67 Total Frequency 155 Row% 52.54% But librarians must look deeper to un- derstand what that really means. Studies have consistently shown that evalua- tions for tenure or promotion are based on job performance in over 90 percent of the cases. This research is no different. We asked respondents to "rank in order of importance criterion on which librar- ians' performance is judged." In over 95 percent of the cases, job performance/ ef- fectiveness is ranked as the number one criteria for judging performance. This can only mean that even in those institutions that indicated that librarians are subject to the same criteria as faculty, the position assignment of the individual librarian is viewed as equivalent to teaching. Librarians who receive faculty status appointments enjoy a fuller participa- tion in the characteristic perquisites for teaching faculty than do those re- ceiving other types of appointments. In general, this research concludes that application of the criteria for promo- tion and for tenure of librarians has been realistically adapted to the needs of the library in the academic setting and the kinds of assignments that librarians re- ceive. This does not differ from the flexi- bility evinced when criteria for promotion are applied to teaching faculty. Modified Professional Civil Faculty Criteria Service Total 70 17 1 225 31.11 7.56 0.44 76.27% 7 11 0 21 33.33 52.38 0.00 7.12% 6 25 2 46 13.04 54.35 4.35 15.59% 0 0 1 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 1.02% 83 53 4 295 28.14% 17.97% 1.36% 100.00% ACADEMIC STATUs- THEN AND NOW The next three data tables address the question of changes in the status of librarian appointments over the last twenty years. In the Carnegie sample of 370 respondents, 341 provided informa- tion concerning the timing for changes in librarians' status, while 80 of the 89 ARL sample libraries did so. Table 8 indicates that over 28 percent of the reporting Car- negie sample institutions have the same status today that they did in 1970. Among ARL libraries, over 51 percent have left the status of librarians un- changed for over twenty years. Between 1970 and 1980 another 33 percent of the reporting Carnegie institutions and 36 percent of ARL institutions had assigned librarians the status they carry at the pre- sent time. Since 1980, approximately 38 percent of the Carnegie sample and 12 percent of the ARL sample have modified the status of librarians' employment. Of those libraries that grant faculty status, 30 percent of the Carnegie and 49 percent of the ARL libraries did so before 1970. Among Carnegie sample libraries particu- larly, the bulk of the change every five years has been in the direction of faculty status. The pace of this change may be characterized as slow; that is not to say glacial. Moreover, the general picture is one of some stability. Nonetheless, this 170 College & Research Libraries March 1993 TABLES YEAR LIBRARIANS' STATUS ASSIGNED Librarians' Status Pre-1970 1970-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 Total Carnegie sample Faculty status Academic status Professional/ administrative status Civil service Total Carnegie sample ARLsample Faculty status Academic status Professional/ administrative status TotalARL member sample Frequency Row% Column% Frequency Row% Column% Frequency Row% Column% Frequency Row% Column% Frequency Row% Frequency Row% Column% Frequency Row% Column% Frequency Row% Column% Frequency Row% 68 30.36 70.10 6 24.00 6.19 22 25.58 22.68 1 16.67 1.03 97 28.45% 18 48.65 43.90 11 42.31 26.83 12 70.59 29.27 41 51.25% phenomenon of change in status de- serves closer examination. In recent years, there has been an in- creasing expression of concern that aca- demic status for librarians might be eroding. This concern has been based largely on anecdotal evidence and was tested empirically in this survey. In general, faculty status is holding its own and making small gains. As demon- strated above, this research indicates that more than 67 percent of all catego- ries of academic libraries grant faculty status. This affects the working lives of about 60 percent of all academic librari- ans. Among. the Carnegie respondents, 80 libraries, or 21 percent of the total370 respondents, indicated a change in the status of librarians since 1970. In general, these changes have favored faculty sta- 33 14.73 66.00 2 8.00 4.00 14 16.28 28.00 1 16.67 2.00 50 14.66% 4 10.81 33.33 8 30.77 66.67 0 0.00 0.00 12 15.00% 45 20.09 72.58 6 24.00 9.68 10 11.63 16.13 1 16.67 1.61 62 18.18% 8 21.62 47.06 5 19.23 29.41 4 23.53 23.53 17 21.25% 43 19.20 70.49 3 12.00 4.92 13 15.12 21.31 2 33.33 3.28 61 17.89% 6 16.22 85.71 1 3.85 14.29 0 0.00 0.00 7 8.75% 35 224N 15.63 65.69% 49.30 8 25 32.00 7.33% 11.27 27 86 31.40 25.22% 38.03 1 6 16.67 1.76% 1.41 71 341 20.82% 100.00% 1 2.70 33.33 1 3.85 33.33 1 5.88 33.33 3 3.75% 37 46.25% 26 32.5% 17 21.25% 80 100.00% tus (see table 9). Fifty-five percent (n = 44) of these libraries experienced a change to faculty status. Thirty-six per- cent (n = 29) experienced a loss of faculty status. Among sixteen responding ARL libraries changing status since 1970, 31 percent (n = 5) gained and 37 percent (n = 6) lost faculty status. The concern in some quarters that in recent years there has been an accelera- tion in the number of "attacks" on fa- culty status led to the analysis shown in table 10, which illustrates changes in sta- tus for five-year periods beginning in 1970. The survey provided information on 75 of the 80 Carnegie sample libraries which had indicated such a change, and the resulting pattern is somewhat even. In cases where faculty status was lost, the percentages are not dramatically Faculty Status for Academic Librarians 171 TABLE9 CHANGES IN STATUS CATEGORIES SINCE 1970 Changed From Carnegie Sample Incomplete data Faculty ·status Academic status Professional/ administrative status Civil service Total Carnegie sample ARL Sample Faculty status Professional/ administrative status Total ARL sample Frequency Row% Frequency Row% Frequency Row% Frequency Row% Frequency Row% Frequency Row% Frequency Row% Frequency Row% Frequency Row% Academic Faculty Status 3 75.00 0 0.00 8 88.89 29 87.88 4 80.00 44 55.00% 0 0.00 5 50.00 5 31.25% Changed To Professional Academic Administrative Status Status 0 0.00 7 24.14 0 0.00 4 12.12 0 0.00 11 13.75% 5 83.33 5 50.00 10 62.50% 1 25.00 19 65.52 1 11.11 0 0.00 1 20.00 22 27.50 1 16.67 0 0.00 1 6.25% Civil Service 0 0.00 3 10.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 3.75% 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 4 5.00% 29 36.25% 9 11.25% 33 41.25% 5 6.25% 80 100.00% 6 37.50% 10 62.50% 16 100.00% TABLE tO LIBRARIANS' STATUS CHANGES, FIVE-YEAR CYCLES, 1970-1990: CARNEGIE SAMPLE Status Change Faculty status Frequency lost Column% Faculty status Frequency gained Column% Other status Frequency change Column% Total Frequency Column% 1970-74 3 33.33 6 66.67 0 0 9 12% higher in the most recent five years than in the earliest period. From 1970 to 197 4, 33 percent of the changes were cases of the loss of faculty status, and from 1985 to 1989, 41 percent of the change was a loss of faculty status. Yet librarians were also steadily gaining faculty status in 1975-79 4 25.00 11 68.75 1 6.25 16 21.33% Year 1980-84 7 33.33 13 61.90 1 4.76 21 28.00% 1985-89 12 41.38 14 48.28 3 10.35 29 38.67% Totals 26 34.67% 44 58.67% 5 6.66% 75 100.00% other institutions. From 1970 to 1974, over 66 percent of the change was in the direction of faculty status. This trend continued for nearly fifteen years. In the most recent five years 1985 to 1989 the percentage of libraries changing to faculty status has dropped to about 48 percent of 172 College & Research Libraries the total change. That, however, should not be viewed with dismay, given the increasing reluctance of administrations and governing boards to add new cate- gories of employees wholesale to the ranks of tenured faculty. Under the pre- sent circumstances, any gains may be viewed as positive. CONCLUSIONS The results of this survey indicate that faculty status for librarians has con- tinued to make gains in institutions of all types since the joint ACRL/ AAUP state- ment twenty years ago. On the one hand, faculty status for librarians is so well established that confidence in its con- tinued growth should be high. On the other hand, any erosion in faculty status for librarians is dismaying to its pro- ponents. Advocates may then question how both the ACRL and the AAUP can assist libraries in protecting the employ- ment rights of their librarians if pre- ferred rights fall below the status represented as the standard. If academic librarians believe that fa- culty status is vital to fulfilling the mis- sion of the libraries within the academy, then they must emphasize the special- ized teaching role of librarians, their con- tribution to scholarship and knowledge, and their service to the academy. Gov- March 1993 erning boards and administrations should be reminded that the gender dis- tribution among librarians is such that granting them faculty status will im- prove the overall performance of higher education toward increasing the ratio of females among tenure track faculty, a position supported by ACRL and AAUP. However, as with colleagues in various disciplines, these expectations of librari- ans must be germane to the mission of the library. During the next twenty years, academic libraries will be trans- formed as they have not been since the tum of the century. The mission of the library is being adapted to a new para- digm characterized by access in addition to collection-centered services and medi- ated by the presence of information tech- nology. The impact of information technology on teaching and scholarship will be equally profound. This change may raise anew objections to librarians as faculty, but it will also offer new op- portunities for librarians to integrate themselves into teaching and scholar- ship through collaboration with faculty colleagues in other disciplines. If closer affinity with classroom teaching and with research are logical outcomes of the new paradigm, then the case for faculty status during the next twenty years will be a persuasive one. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Thomas G. English, "Librarian Status in Eighty-nine U.S. Academic Institutions of the Association of Research Libraries: 1982," College & Research Libraries, 44, no. 3 (May 1983): 199-211 . 2. American Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries, Associa- tion of American Colleges, Association of American University Professors, "Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians," College & Research Libraries News 35 (Feb. 197 4): 26. See also American Library Association, Association of Libraries, Academic Status Committee, "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians; a Proposal," College & Research Libraries News 31 (Oct. 1970): 271-72; and "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians; Revision," College & Research Libraries News 32 (Feb. 1971): 36-37. 3. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, A Classification of Institu- tions of Higher Education (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Pr., 1987). 4. Betsy Park and Robert Riggs, "Status of the Profession: A 1989 National Survey of Tenure and Promotion Policies," College & Research Libraries 52 (May 1991): 279. 5. English, "Librarian Status in Eighty-nine U.S. Academic Institutions of the Association of Research Libraries," 207.