Untitled-3 The Academic Elite in Library Science 233 233 The Academic Elite in Library Science: Linkages among Top-Ranked Graduate Programs Jeffrey H. Bair and Janice C. Barrons In a national survey of deans, top administrators, and senior faculty, the ten top-ranked graduate programs in library science were substan- tially linked to one another by hiring one another’s graduates. It is sug- gested that this linkage helps these programs to maintain and enhance their prestige. ebster noted that in some disciplines in the social sci- ences, such as economics, psy- chology, and sociology, the rankings of the leading graduate programs are published often.1 The rankings of graduate programs leading to careers in major professions, such as engineering, law, and medicine, also are published often. However, in most other fields, in- cluding library science, rankings are pub- lished infrequently. According to Webster, �in the increasingly important health- related fields, in areas other than medicine, no methodologically sophisticated rank- ing has ever been published for most of the programs.�2 In March 1996, U.S. News & World Report helped remedy this oversight by ranking the leading gradu- ate programs in library science for the first time. Today, there are fifty gradu- ate schools of library science in the United States, and since 1988, the num- ber of students receiving master �s de- grees in library science has increased by 33 percent and the number receiving doc- toral degrees has increased by 67 per- cent.3, 4 The authors investigated the extent to which top-ranked graduate programs in library science might tend to maintain and enhance their reputations by hiring their own and one another �s graduates. Top-ranked law schools were substan- tially linked to one another in this man- ner, as were top-ranked doctoral pro- grams in mathematics and the physical sciences, the social sciences, chemical engineering, psychology, and social work.5�10 The extent to which top-ranked graduate programs in library science also might hire their own and one another�s graduates was assessed in the present study. Method A ranking of the most highly regarded graduate programs in library science was presented in U.S. News & World Report.11 That ranking was based on a survey of deans, top administrators, and senior fac- ulty of the accredited schools in library Jeffrey H. Bair is a Professor in the Division of Sociology and Anthropology at Emporia State University; e-mail: bairjeff@esumail.emporia.edu. Janice C. Barrons is a Library Assistant II in the William Allen White Library at Emporia State University; e-mail: barronsj@esumail.emporia.edu. 234 College & Research Libraries May 1997 science. Respondents were asked to rank the reputations of accredited schools by placing them into tiers of academic qual- ity, taking into account each school�s scholarship, curriculum, and the quality of its faculty and graduate students. The response rate was 73 percent. The ten top-ranked graduate pro- grams in library science are listed in table 1.12 The names of the faculty members in these ten programs and the universities from which the faculty members had re- ceived their doctoral degrees were ob- tained from the Internet, graduate school catalogs, and Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national. Results The number of faculty members in each of the ten top-ranked library science pro- grams, the percentage of those who had obtained their doctoral degrees from that same university, the percentage of those who had obtained their degrees from one of the other ten top-ranked programs, and the overall percentage of those who had obtained their degrees from the ten top-ranked programs are presented in table 1. These data indicate that 84 (59.2%) of the 142 faculty members in these ten programs had graduated from one of the top-ranked schools. The University of Texas had the highest percentage of fac- ulty from among the ten top-ranked pro- grams (83.3%) and the University of Wis- consin at Madison had the lowest (40%). These data also indicate that some of these programs tended to hire their own graduates. The University of Pittsburgh and Rutgers University had hired the largest proportions of their faculties from among their own graduates (38.5% and 35.7%, respectively). However, the Uni- versity of North Carolina had not hired any of its own graduates, and the other universities had hired from between 10 and 27.3 percent (median = 19%) of their own graduates. Finally, these top-ranked schools had hired from between 7.1 and 66.7 percent (median = 38.25%) of their faculties from other schools among the academic elite. Discussion These data suggest that a small number of programs (ten in this case) tend to main- tain and enhance their reputations by hir- ing their own and each other�s graduates. Al- though highly rated programs might find that the best candi- dates for positions tend to come from their own and other elite programs, such a tendency would not account for the marked degree of in- breeding that these data document. Ap- proximately 60 per- cent (59.2%) of the faculty members in these ten programs had graduated from one of these same ten programs. These ten TABLE 1 Number of Faculty in Elite Programs and Percent of Faculty from Same Programs, Other Elite Programs, and All Elite Programs Percent from Elite Programs Rank Program Number Same Other All 1 Univ. of Illinois 10 20.0% 50.0% 70.0% 2 Univ. of Michigan 17 17.6 35.3 52.9 2 Univ. of North 17 0.0 52.9 52.9 Carolina 4 Syracuse Univ. 17 23.5 41.2 64.7 5 Univ. of Pittsburgh 13 38.5 30.8 69.2 6 Indiana Univ. 21 19.0 42.9 61.9 6 Rutgers Univ. 14 35.7 7.1 42.9 6 Univ. of Wisconsin, 10 10.0 30.0 40.0 Madison 9 Univ. of Texas, Austin 12 16.7 66.7 83.3 10 Drexel Univ. 11 27.3 27.3 54.5 The Academic Elite in Library Science 235 graduate programs undoubtedly are ex- cellent; the authors certainly do not con- tend that they are not. Several factors can influence the pres- tige rankings of graduate programs when those rankings are based on the ratings of deans, top administrators, and senior faculty. It seems reasonable that the graduates of elite programs, whether currently employed at elite schools or less prestigious schools, would tend to give high ratings to their alma maters. However, there are not enough gradu- ates from elite schools to allow them to maintain the high status of their alma maters without some support from their nonelite colleagues. It seems that some nonelite have adopted the elites� defini- tion that their programs are, in fact, the best. Elite programs have been accorded high esteem for decades, and these tra- ditions typically have gone unchal- lenged. Elite programs maintain their status in part because it is relatively easy for them to acquire faculty from other elite programs and to place their own graduates in other elite schools. Conclusion Ultimately, this question arises: Are the highest-ranked programs the best gradu- ate programs in library science, or do they comprise an elite that has a vested interest in perpetuating the notion that they are academically the best? Helmer�s contention that the hierarchy of prestige is fundamentally a hierarchy of power receives strong support from these data.13 Two final comments seem in order. First, the authors contend that because of their subjectivity, current ranking systems are a detriment to the field of library sci- ence. They may impede professional mo- bility, reward status over achievement, and result in programs of lesser renown being bypassed, even though they may merit as high or higher recognition than do those of the elite. Second, the authors believe that current, subjective ranking systems incor- porate serious distortions and misrepre- sentations. Because they have the poten- tial to do as much harm as good, it is rec- ommended that as they are presently con- stituted, subjective systems of program ranking should be routinely ignored. Notes 1. David S. Webster, �U.S. News & World Report�s Complete Rankings of Graduate Programs in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Nursing,� Change 26, no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 1994): 37�45. 2. Ibid. 3. �Best Graduate Schools,� U.S. News & World Report 120, no. 11 (March 18, 1996): 100. 4. �Almanac,� Chronicle of Higher Education 52, no. 1 (Sept. 1995): 20. 5. Jeffrey H. Bair and Myron Boor, �The Academic Elite in Law: Linkages among Top-Ranked Law Schools,� Psychological Reports 68, no. 3 (June 1991): 891�94. 6. Jeffrey H. Bair, �Linkages among Top-Ranked Graduate Programs in Three Physical Sci- ences and Mathematics,� Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 94, no. 1�2 (April 1991): 33� 37. 7. Jeffrey H. Bair, William E. Thompson, and Joseph V. Hickey, �The Academic Elite in Six Social Science Disciplines: Linkages among Top-Ranked Graduate Departments,� Mid-American Review of Sociology 15, no. 1 (winter 1991): 33�42. 8. Jeffrey H. Bair, �The Academic Elite in ChE,� Chemical Engineering Education 25, no. 4 (fall 1991): 181�83. 9. Jeffrey H. Bair and Myron Boor, �Psychology of the Scientist: LIX. The Academic Elite in Psychology: Linkages among Top-Ranked Graduate Programs,� Psychological Reports 63, no. 2 (Oct. 1988): 539�42. 10. Jeffrey H. Bair, Myron Boor, and Kendra E. Bair, �Psychology of the Scientist: LXIX. The Academic Elite in Social Work: Linkages among Top-Ranked Graduate Programs,� Psychological Reports 76, no. 1 (Feb. 1995): 347�50. 11. �Best Graduate Schools,� 100. 12. Ibid. 13. John Helmer, The Deadly Simple Mechanics of Society (New York: Seaburg, 1974).