College and Research Libraries The Changing Profile of University Library Directors, 1966-1981 Ronald Dale Karr Characteristics of directors of ARL academic libraries in 1966 and 1981 were compared to gauge the degree of change that occurred at the highest levels of university libraries. In both years directors were predominantly middle-aged male graduates of liberal arts programs. Sig- nificant differences were observed, however, in the directors' regions of origin, library educa- tion, additional graduate degrees, and career patterns. This evidence suggests that competition for directorships has intensified because of an enlarged pool of potential candidates. he late 1960s and 1970s are re- membered as· years of innova- tion and upheaval, a time when traditional life-styles and insti- tutional procedures were challenged by new attitudes and technological ad- vances. Universities were on the cutting edge of this transformation; even aca- demic libraries were not immune. But how substantive were these changes? Did they reach the highest levels in major uni- versity libraries? Were library directors in the early 1980s a different breed than their predecessors in the mid-1960s? To explore these questions I compiled data on the origins, education, and career patterns of the men and women who in 1981 directed the ninety U.S. academic li- braries affiliated whh the Association of Research Libraries. For comparison I gath- ered similar information on the directors of these same ninety libraries in 1966. Who's Who in Library and Information Ser- vices and its predecessors provided the bi- ographical details. 1 Libraries with vacan- cies, acting directors, or nonlibrarians serving as directors were excluded. ORIGINS Gender is one of the more notable differ- ences between the directors of 1966 and 1981. In 1966 only one library (SUNY -Al- bany) was headed by a woman; by 1981 twelve had female directors (14 percent of the filled positions). But since two thirds of all academic librarians are female, women continued to be underrepresented at this level. 2 Directors came from all parts of the country, although some regions produced more than others. Table 1 shows the birth- places of the 1966 and 1981 directors by federal census regions, and for compari- son indicates the distribution of the U.S. population in 1910 and 1930, the years closest to the mean birth date of each group. In 1966 a disproportionate number of directors came from the west north cen- tral states (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas) and the Pacific states, while the New England and east north central (the Great Lakes states) regions were un- derrepresented. Fifteen years later the pattern was reversed. In both years only a handful of directors were foreign-born. EDUCATION Future directors attended a variety of undergraduate institutions, ranging from Ronald Dale Karr is public services librarian at the Transportation LibranJ, Northwestern University Library, Evanston , Illinois 60201. 282 r Changing Profile 283 TABLE 1 BIRTHPLACES OF DIRECTORS BY REGION 1966 1981 Distribution Distribution of U.S. of U.S. Region* No. % Pop. , 1910 % No. % Pop., 1930 % NewEntand 4 5 7 9 11 7 Middle tlantic 13 16 21 18 22 21 East North Central 13 16 20 17 21 21 West North Central 16 20 13 8 10 11 South Atlantic 9 11 13 7 9 13 East South Central 5 6 9 5 6 8 West South Central 7 9 10 4 5 10 Mountain 2 2 3 3 4 3 Pacific 8 10 5 3 4 7 Foreign-born 5 6 7 9 Total 82 101 101 81 101 101 Unknown : 1966, 1; 1981, 4. *New England : Me., N .H ., Vt. , Mass ., Conn ., R.I. ; middle Atlantic: N.Y., N .J., Pa.; east north central: Ohio, Ind ., Ill. , Mich ., Wis .; west north central: Minn. , Iowa, Mo ., N .D., S.D. , Nebr. , Kans .; south Atlantic: Del. , Md ., D.C., Va ., W.Va ., N .C. , S.C., Ga. , Fla.; east south central: Ky., Tenn. , Ala., Miss.; west south cen tral: Ark ., La. , Okla ., Tex .; mountain : Mont ., Id ., Wy ., Colo ., N .M ., Ariz ., Utah, Nev. ; Pacific: Wash ., Oreg. , Calif., Alaska, Hawaii. prominent universities to obscure col- leges. The 1966 directors were more likely to have graduated from prestigious insti- tutions than were their successors in 1981. Nine directors in the 1966 group were alumni of Ivy League schools (Columbia, Harvard, Dartmouth, and Yale), and three others attended universities of compara- ble renown (Stanford and the University of Chicago). In contrast, only three of the 1981 directors received undergraduate de- grees from Ivy League or elite colleges (Harvard, Chicago, and Swarthmore). English and history were the most pop- ular undergraduate majors among both groups of future directors, with nearly half taking their degrees in these two ar- eas. In all, 80 percent of the 1966 directors and 75 percent of the 1981 contingent had majored in the liberal arts (see table 2). The two groups showed significant dif- ferences in the library education they re- ceived. In 1966 twelve directors-15 per- cent of the total-lacked library degrees; by 1981 every ARL director was a graduate of a certified graduate library program. Moreover, the 1966 directors who had at- tended library school were largely prod- ucts of a few select universities: 68 percent had obtained their initial professional de- grees from just three schools-Columbia, Michigan, and Illinois. None of the other fifteen library schools represented could TABLE 2 UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR SUBJECT AREAS OF DIRECTORS 1966 1981 Field No. % No. % Liberal Arts 57 80 55 75 English 23 32 22 30 History 13 18 12 16 Humanities 13 18 10 14 Social Science 8 11 11 15 Education 1 1 3 4 Business 1 1 1 1 Library Science 1 1 1 1 Journalism 1 1 0 0 Science-Engineering 10 14 13 18 Total 71 98 73 99 Unknown: 1966, 12; 1981, 12. claim more than two alumni among the di- rectors (see table 3). In contrast, the three library schools most frequently attended by the 1981 di- rectors (Columbia, Michigan, and Sim- mons) accounted for only 37 percent of the group. Not even the top five institutions could claim more than half of the direc- tors. Simmons College, which was not at- tended by any of the 1966 directors, had edged out the University of Illinois with six alumni. In all, the 1966 .slirectors were graduates of only eighteen different li- brary schools; their successors in 1981 had attenc:led no less than thirty. Both before and after stints in library 284 College & Research Libraries July 1984 TABLE 3 LIBRARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED BY DIRECTORS (FIRST PROFESSIONAL DEGREES) 1966 1. Columbia (21) 2. Michigan (14) 3. illinois (12) 15 other schools (22) No degree (12) Unknown : 1966, 2; 1981, 4. school, most directors obtained additional academic degrees. Given the great expan- sion in graduate education that has char- acterized the past few decades, one might have expected the 1981 directors to be the better educated; but this was not the case (see table 4). To be sure, all directors in the 1981 group held at least a master's degree, compared to 93 percent in the 1966 group. But, surprisingly, the proportion of direc- tors with doctorates fell from nearly half in 1966 to one third in 1981. A second mas- ter's degree in a subject area had become an acceptable substitute for the doctorate. CAREER PATTERNS Future directors of major university li- braries usually launched their careers in academic libraries, a tendency that is be- coming increasingly pronounced. In 1966, 71 percent of the directors had started in academic libraries; by 1981 that figure had reached 79 percent (see table 5). (Simi- larly, directors of large public libraries usually begin in public libraries). 3 Future directors most frequently found their ini- tial professional positions in the public 1981 1. Columbia (14) 2. Michigan (10) 3. Simmons (6) 4. Chicago (5) Illinois (5) 25 other schools (41) services area (see table 6). One third of the 1966 directors, however, had gone di- rectly into library administration; only 12 percent of their successors in 1981 held their first jobs in this area. No less than twelve (16 percent) of the 1966 group had started their library careers as directors (usually of small academic libraries), com- pared to only four (5 percent) in 1981. The 1966 directors rose faster to the top than did their successors in 1981. Mem- bers of the 1966 group obtained their ini- tial directorship at a mean age of 36.7 years, compared to 39.2 years for the 1981 contingent. The 1966 directors averaged 42.1 years when they assumed their cur- rent post; their successors, 44.5 years. Along the way the 1966 directors were em- ployed at an average of 3.7 libraries; the 1981 group, 4.0. Ten directors (12 percent) in 1966 had spent their entire library ca- reers at a single institution, compared to six (8 percent) in 1981. In the course of their careers most direc- tors moved away from their birthplaces. Only 17 percent of the 1966 group had been born in the same states as their li- TABLE 4 HIGHEST ACADEMIC DEGREE OBTAINED BY DIRECTORS 1966 1981 Degree No . % No . %· Bachelor's 6 7 0 0 MLS 20 25 31 38 MLS/BLS + 2d Master's 11 14 22 27 MLS +Law 1 1 1 1 MLS/BLS +Ph.D (LS) 22 27 18 22 MLS/BLS +Ph.D (Subj.) 10 12 9 11 Master's, no MLS/BLS 7 8 0 0 Ph.D, no MLS/BLS 4 5 0 0 Total 81 99 81 99 Unknown : 1966, 2; 1981, 4. TABLES INITIAL PROFESSIONAL POSITION BY TYPE OF LIBRARY 1966 1981 Type No. % No. % Academic 58 71 62 79 Public 15 1S 9 12 Special 4 5 7 9 School 5 6 0 0 Total 82 100 78 100 Unknown: 1966, 1; 1981, 7. TABLE6 INITIAL PROFESSIONAL POSITION BY FUNCTION 1966 1981 Function* No. % No. % Public Services 32 43 39 53 Technical Serv1ces 13 17 21 28 Administr-ation 25 33 9 12 Other 5 7 5 7 Total 75 100 74 100 Unknown: 196ti, 8; 1981, ll . ._Public services includes reference, circulation, serials/periodi- -