College and Research Libraries Tenure and Turnover in Academic Libraries Elizabeth C. Henry, Dana M. Caudle, and Paula Sullenger This study examined the relationship between tenure and turnover rates for librarians in academic libraries. Survey forms were sent to 124 college and university library directors. The authors found no significant correlation be- tween the two. However, there does seem to be a relationship between scholarly publishing requirements and turnover rates. g his study investigates the re-lationship between tenure re-quirements and turnover rates within academic librar- ies. The authors are new librarians in an academic institution where librarians are required to stand for tenure and pro- motion reviews like other faculty mem- bers. Much anecdotal evidence, both pro and con, exists concerning whether or not tenure requirements have a causa- tive relationship with turnover rates. A search of the literature revealed no exist- ing studies on the relationship between tenure requirements and turnover rates. The authors decided to conduct such a study in order to evaluate the relation- ship objectively, if any, of tenure require- ments to turnover rates. It is also hoped that further research into the effects of faculty status and tenure-track require- ments on professional librarians in col- lege and university libraries will be stimulated. SURVEY OF RELEVANT LITERATURE Surveys of librarians and their status have been in the library literature for decades. Since the establishment of the ACRL's "Standard for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians," published in 1971, there have been an increasing number of surveys investi- gating the status of librarians, their ti- tles, rate of pay, and various other aspects of their professionallives. 1 In the mid-1980s several literature reviews dis- cussed the topic of faculty status and tenure. Janet Krompart and Clara DiFe- lice highlighted the most often asked questions found in major surveys con- ducted · from 1971 to 1984.2 They dis- cussed the findings of those surveys and the implications for the profession. Emily Werrell and Laura Sullivan looked at literature on librarians and fac- ulty status from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.3 They examined librarians' feelings toward the idea of fafulty status and the problems faced by librarians in the areas of publications/ scholarship, governance within the library, collective bargaining, and the issue of librarians as teachers. Kee DeBoer and Wendy Cu- lotta reviewed the literature on the status of librarians, much of it survey research, in articles published between 1980 and 1987.4 They covered the topics mentioned in the previous two articles by comparing the results different authors found on the same topics. There were wide disparities found on subjects Elizabeth C. Henry and Paula Sullenger are Serials Catalogers and Dana M. Caudle is a Monographic Cataloger at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849. 429 430 College & Research Libraries such as the number of librarians with fac- ulty status, sabbaticals, and funding for research. In 1992 Krompart published a comprehensive annotated bibliography of research done on faculty status.5 While the amount of published re- search on tenure is impressive, there is little on library turnover, and even less that links the two together. James Neal's studies on employee turnover rates in libraries have evaluated such factors as geography, salary, and spouse require- ments and their effects on turnover rates.6•7.s Dee Ann Allison and Eva Sar- tori questioned previous and current li- brarians on their decision to leave the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and analyzed their responses.9 Among their findings, they revealed that "less than 25% of those who left considered tenure very important in making a decision to leave or stay." 1° Karen F. Smith and oth- ers found that "having tenure does not appear to be an overriding considera- tion restricting the mobility and ad- vancement of tenured librarians. Librarians, whether married or not mar- ried, are generally tied to their jobs for a variety of personal reasons." 11 METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION The authors listed all academic li- braries found in The American Library Directory-excluding law and medical li- braries-with five or more professional librarians. Every sixth library from this list was selected, which resulted in a random sample of college and university librar- ies in the United States. The only other similar survey, that of W. Bede Mitchell and L. Stanislava Swieszkowski, sur- veyed directors of Center for Research Libraries member libraries.12 A wider, more representative sample of libraries was desired, because much research tends to focus only on major research libraries (see appendix A). One hundred twenty-four libraries re- ceived the survey forms. Of this number, ninety-four were returned, mostly within the first two weeks of the mailing. A number of write-in comments were received on the form. The overall re- September 1994 sponse rate was 76 percent, compared to the 94.5 percent response rate of Mitchell and Swieszkowski. 13 One survey had to be discarded because of incomplete in- formation and one survey arrived too late to be included in the data set. Statis- tical analysis was performed on the re- maining responses which represented 75 percent of the total sample. The data were entered into PC SAS and all statistical tests were conducted at a 0.05 or 95 percent confidence level. Two general measures of crude turnover rates were calculated for each library. The accession rate is defined as the percentage of librarians hired during a given period. It is calculated by taking the number of librarians hired and dividing by the aver- age number of librarians. The separation rate is defined as the percentage of librari- ans leaving during a given period. It is calculated by taking the number of li- brarians who leave the institution and dividing by the average number of li- brarians. Those who left for reasons of retirement or death were excluded. Tenure track requirements for professional librarians in college and university libraries do not have a significant effect on their turnover rates. A t-test for independent samples was performed for each of the turnover rates, with the granting of tenure as the de- pendent variable. The null hypothesis for the tests stated that libraries with ten- ure track appointment for professional li- brarians will have the same turnover rates as libraries without a tenure track. The t-test proved this hypothesis is true for both accession rates and separation rates. Turnover rates are statistically the same whether or not a library has tenure. There- fore~ tenure track requirements for profes- sional librarians in college and university libraries do not have a significant effect on their turnover rates. An analysis of the error bars confirmed the results of the t-test. The error bars show a mean accession rate of 51.1 +I- 6.7 Tenure and Turnover in Academic Libraries 431 ~+--------------------------------------------------------------- Tenure -No c=::==:::J Yes 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-125 126-150 151-175 251-275 Accession Rate (Percentage) FIGUREl Accession Rates percent for libraries that do not have tenure and a mean rate of 54.4 +I- 6.3 percent for libraries that do have tenure. Although there is a difference of 3.3 per- cent in the mean accession rates, it proves not to be statistically significant. The error bars also show a mean separa- tion rate of 38.9 +I- 6. 9 percent for lib rar- ies that do not have tenure and a mean rate of 33.7 +I- 5.0 percent for libraries with tenure for professional librarians. Again, this 5.2 percent difference in mean separation rates proves not to be statistically significant. The range of values for the accession rates (figure 1) and separation rates (fig- ure 2) in libraries with tenure is approxi- mately twice that for libraries without tenure. The maximum value is 275 per- cent versus 175 percent for the accession rates, and 300 percent versus 129 percent for the separation rates. Tenure denial rates and tenure ap- proval rates were also calculated for each library that granted tenure. Forty- two out of the ninety-two, or 46 percent of the responses, came from libraries with tenure track appointments. In gen- eral, for academic institutions having tenure track requirements, 93 percent of all librarians who stood for tenure re- ceived it, compared with 81.5 percent in Mitchell and Swieszkowski's survey.14 Next, a Pearson correlation was per- formed between the tenure denial/ ap- proval rates and the turnover rates. Here the null hypothesis stated that no corre- lation exists between the tenure denial rate and the accession/ separation rates, and that no correlation exists between the tenure approval rate and the turn- over rates. This hypothesis was proved false for all combinations. There are very small correlations indicating a relationship between the following combinations of rates (ranked by strength of the relation- ship from the strongest to weakest): • There is an inverse correlation (mean- ing that one rate will decrease when the other increases) between the separation rate and the tenure approval rate. • There is also an inverse correlation between the accession rate and the tenure approval rate. • There is a positive correlation (mean- ing that the rates are directly related) between the separation rate and the tenure denial rate. · 432 College & Research Libraries September 1994 ~+---------------------------------------------------------- 25 ~ "t: «S20 ..... .c ::I 015 ..... Q) .c E 10 :::s z 5 0 91.0% 0-25 26-50 Tenure -No ~Yes 51-75 76-100 101-125 126-150 276-~ Separation Rate (Percentage) FIGURE2 Separation Rates FIGURE3 Legend Received Tenure Tenure Denied/No Publications Required Tenure Denied/Publications Required 7.0% Effect of Scholarly Publishing Requirements Tenure and Turnover in Academic Libraries 433 • There is a positive correlation between the accession rate and the tenure de- nial rate. The weakness of these four correla- tions may indicate that tenure does not significantly affect the decision to re- main in a position. Finally, tenure approval and denial rates were compared between institu- tions that required scholarly publishing for tenure and those that did not. The authors did not investigate whether or not the definition of scholarly publish- ing a teach of these academic institutions meant anything in print anywhere or publishing strictly in refereed journals, nor did they investigate whether authorities internal or external to a li- brary applied internal or external stand- ards to determine an acceptable level of publishing. Of the 9 percent of academic librarians denied tenure, 7 percent were at institutions requiring scholarly pub- lishing, and only 2 percent were at insti- tutions that said they had no publishing requirements. This result suggests that scholarly publishing requirements may have some effect on turnover rates and should be more closely investigated. The pie chart (figure 3) illustrates the effect of scholarly publishing on tenure approval. Requirements for service commit- ments were examined for their effect on turnover rates. In the interest of keeping this survey brief and exploratory, "serv- ice" was not defined. This could include service on a committee or two within the library system itself, service on commit- tees of the academic institution, or serv- ice on professional committees at the state, regional, or national levels. This could serve as a topic for further inves- tigation. There was no correlation be- tween tenure and release time, either, as Mitchell and Swieszkowski found. 15 CONCLUSIONS First, it should be pointed out that colleges and universities generally be- lieve that a certain level of turnover is beneficial to the institution by bringing in fresh ideas and experiences and add- ing to the diversity of the faculty. Beyond that certain percentage, turnover be- comes undesirable and negative for the institution. The negative aspects of turn- over are the demoralizing effects of con- stant change, the continual training of new staff, and the lack of continuity. Turnover rates in this survey ranged from 0 percent to 300 percent (achieved by the library filling the same position more than once during the five-year pe- riod). It is important for each academic library to know what the turnover rates are for their institution and for their li- brary, and how these rates reflect insti- tutional and library goals. The negative aspects of turnover are the demoralizing effects of constant change, the continual training of new staff, and the lack of continuity. The purpose of this study was to in- vestigate the possibility of a correlation between tenure track requirements and turnover rates for academic librarians. The primary conclusion of this study is that having librarians meet tenure track requirements does not significantly in- crease or decrease the turnover rates for professional staff. In fact, those libraries that had high turnover rates were more likely not to have tenure requirements. It is clear that tenure does not have a significant impact on turnover rates across the profession. When examining tenure rates of professional staff, aca- demic libraries need to consider factors other than tenure requirements. The an- ticorrelation between the tenure ap- proval rate and the crude turnover rates suggests that the presence of tenure track appointments might contribute to stability and lower turnover in an indi- vidual library, rather than cause higher turnover. The authors hope this study will be of use to those libraries contem- plating either adopting or discontinuing the tenure track system. It should also help librarians who already work in a tenure environment to have reasonable expectations about the repercussions of tenure. Librarians considering working in a college or university library with 434 College & Research Libraries tenure can make more informed deci- sions about whether they want to work within a tenure system. The study did not examine turnover rates in terms oflibrary size. Future studies need to examine the impact of tenure on turnover in small libraries versus that in large libraries. Subsequent studies also need to examine the number of tenured librarians who leave as compared with the number of untenured librarians who leave. A study of the number of years that librarians stay in a tenure track position may also prove useful since some libraries use a third year review process to weed out librarians who are not progressing toward tenure. Several other areas suggest them- selves for further research. A survey of the methods that college and university libraries employ to support their profes- sional staff development and to facilitate meeting tenure track requirements September 1994 could be of benefit to other libraries. Re- search into turnover rates for librarians in technical service areas compared to turnover rates for librarians in public services should be pursued. Many tech- nical service departments have quanti- tative quotas in place, either unofficially or in official guidelines, which may put additional pressures on technical service librarians to perform at both a high quantitative and a high qualitative level. Finally, further exploration is needed concerning the effect that scholarly pub- lishing requirements have on turnover rates. This area seems to be the one most identified with tenure requirements and the one area that provoked the most re- sponse, sometimes quite emotional. Some librarians have very strong feel- ings about research and publication re- quirements. More objective information on the subject would be desirable. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Association of College and Research Libraries Academic Status Committee, "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians," College & Research Libraries News 33 (Sept. 1972): 210-13. For 1992 revision, see Association of College and Research Libraries Academic Status Committee, "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians," College & Research Libraries News 53 (May 1992): 317-18. 2. Janet Krompart and Clara DiFelice, "A Review of Faculty Status Surveys, 1971-1984," Journal of Academic Librarianship 13, no.1 (1987): 14-18. 3. Emily Werrel and Laura Sullivan, "Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: A Review of the Literature," College & Research Libraries 48 (Mar. 1987): 95-103. 4. Kee DeBoer and Wendy Culotta, "The Academic Librarian and Faculty Status in the 1980s: A Survey of the Literature," College & Research Libraries 48 (May 1987): 215-23. 5. Janet Krompart, "Researching Faculty Status: A Selective Annotated Bibliography," College & Research Libraries 53 (Sept. 1992): 439-49. 6. James G. Neal, "The Turnover Process and the Academic Library," in Advances in Library Administration and Organization 3 (1984): 47-71. 7. James G. Neal, "Professional Staff Turnover in ARL University Libraries," unpublished paper, Feb. 1989. 8. James G. Neal, "Employee Turnover and the Exit Interview," Library Trends 38, no.1 (Summer 1989): 32-39. 9. Dee Ann Allison and Eva Sartori, "Professional Staff Turnover in Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 49 (Mar. 1988): 141-48. 10. Ibid., 143. 11. Karen F. Smith, Tamara U. Frost, Amy Lyons, and Mary Reiche, "Tenured Librarians in Large University Libraries," College & Research Libraries 44 (Mar. 1984): 98. 12. W. Bede Mitchell and L. Stanislava Swieszkowski, "Publication Requirements and Tenure Approval Rates: An Issue for Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries 46 (May 1985): 249-55. 13. Ibid., 250. 14. Ibid., 252. 15. Ibid., 253. Tenure and Turnover in Academic Libraries 435 APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM 1. Regardless of rank or title, how many permanent professional librarian positions did your institution have at the end of the 1991/92 academic year? 2. Did the number of these positions change during the period from the beginning of the 1985/86 academic year through the end of the 1991/92 academic year? If so, what was the change? (increase or decrease and number) 3. How many individuals were hired during the above period, excluding temporary appointmen~?-------------------------------------------------- 4. How many individuals left during the above period, excluding temporary appointments? -------------------------------------------------- 5. How many of these individuals leaving did so because of retirement or death? ______________________________________________________ ___ For questions 6, 7 and 9, please answer yes or no. 6. Do professional librarians have to stand for tenure?----------------------- If not, please disregard the rest of the questions and return the survey. 7. Aside from job performance, which of these are requirements for tenure? a. Scholarly publishing?-------------------:-- Are librarians granted release time to work on research? b. Professional or institlltional committee and association work, or other service to the profession? ----------------------------------------------- c. Other? (Please specify)-------------------- 8. How many individuals applied for tenure during this period?----'------- a. How many obtained tenure, excluding those granted de facto tenure? ___ _ b. How many were denied tenure? 9. If your institution conducts exit interviews, has any librarian stated publishing or com- mittee requirements as a reason for leaving? ____________________________ _ Return to: ELIZABETH C. HENRY Serials, RBD Library Auburn University, AL 36849-3501 n panic~ • Th BLAC K ' 'r I < 1 t \( :KVV f I I (,on p .. t 1lt B H H.: BLAC'J(Wl:LL c·ornp( 1j c:;., • lnpan e" • 1 ') L ' . I • 1 . \(:!{WELL Bla~kwell North Anler1c l(' BT Al 'KWEI . B,. '1 'k 11 p . trpant ·~ • I l1e Ul 'laC . we erl~-<&.'""~~· \(,KW LI I ( otnpa 11es • ne t . • d lcBIAC'l{WrLL(olnf.It.t Ream n 1 p.Ul \.... 1.) f\ r' ~ v r j . A I \C:IZ ,,&eadm0r0 Academic S€rvic c:onlpanie~ •1 he IH AC~ \',J L , 1 (, J1 lpa \. ne~ • fhe l3LAC~K\VEl L c:on1panic" • lhe BLA( KWI·L ('otnpu·ie~ :WLL 1 C:o111panies •The l3LAt:K\VF f I C'otnp.1 lit"s • I he B[ AC:KWLI I LAC J{\VEL L c:o1npanie~ • fhe BLAt "[(WELL ( ornp n1 ~') • rfhe Bl AC K 1ie~ • The BLA<:KWEl L C~cnnpanies • [he BI l\l:KWEI I (,otnpanies • WEI L C:ornpanies • fhe lH A(](\X/El i C.:on1panies • fhe BI AC:KWELI r AC KWPI L C:otnpanies • fhe Bi AC:KWEl L ( cnnpanie~ • fhe BLAC~K it rl e ~l A_( l{\X!FI J I' ·p . > • '11 q Ar I{\ h'f { ', 1 .~t it>-1;.. Oxford • Lake: Oswego, OR · ~Blac~wood, NJ • New York • Toronto y .J.LJ ,£ '-..(~A.-4 t"' .{ .......,. ~. t# ..... \...ri..I..Lt 441 A. I ·" ies • The BI AC:In1panies • I ~1c B LACJ{ \VF Ll