College and Research Libraries Publication Requirements and Tenure Approval Rates: An ·Issue for Academic Librarians W. Bede Mitchell and L. Stanislava Swieszkowski One hundred and thirty-eight members of the Center for Research Libraries responded to a survey designed to test the hypothesis that where tenure-track librarians are required to do research and publish, an inadequate research and publication record would be the most fre- quent cause for the rejection of the librarians' tenure applications. The hypothesis proved valid, but only for a small percentage of the librarians . The study revealed a generally high tenure approval rate (81. 5 percent) for academic librarians compared to the national average for other academic faculty (58 percent). II . ecent studies and estimates in- dicate that some form of faculty . status has been achieved by as many as 75 percent of practic- ing academic librarians. 1 Librarians' expe- rience has shown that the benefits of fac- ulty status are usually accompanied by new responsibilities. An issue of particu- lar concern arises when institutions adopt promotion and tenure criteria for librari- ans that are similar, if not identical, to those used for the instructional faculty. When these criteria include the require- ment to do research and publish, many li- brarians find themselves in unfamiliar ter- ritory because of . . . the very nature of library work as it is cur- rently structured. The daily work load of most academic librarians usually limits, sometimes severely, the possibility of systematically devel- oping and pursuing individual research inter- ests. So too does the fact that most academic li- brarians have 12-month rather than 9-month contracts . Finally, even where research is re- quired for professional advancement, there typically has been a lack of administrative sup- port for it, exemplified by the failure to provide released time, clerical assistance, and funding in adequate amounts. 2 This scenario suggests that librarians with faculty status may find it difficult to earn promotion and tenure when their re- search and publication standards are simi- lar to those that their colleagues on the in- structional faculty must meet. Tradition- ally, unlike the teaching faculty, research and publication has not been part of the job for the majority of academic librarians. While some librarians found the time to publish, as demonstrated by the numer- ous and long-published library journals, most did not. In fact, publishing was never an issue until librarians began to ac- quire "tenure-track" status. Therefore, the authors postulated that when aca- demic librarians are required to produce research and publish in order to achieve tenure, the lack of such production would be the most frequent cause for an appli- cant to be denied tenure. SELECTED RELEVANT LITERATURE In her 1977 article "Publication Activity W. Bede Mitchell is circulation librarian at Montana State University, Bozeman, 59717. L. Stanislava Swieszkowski was creative arts librarian at Montana State and is now art librarian, New York Public Library, New York 10012 . 249 250 · College & Research Libraries Among Academic Librarians," Paula de Simone Watson suggests that "librarians with faculty status are likely to suffer where promotion and tenure decisions concerning them are subjected to the same review procedures used to evaluate the teaching faculty'' because of ' 1 the low pro- ductivity found by the present study for professionals with five or fewer years of experience. '' 3 Watson surveyed the publi- cation records of librarians at ten large uni- versity libraries for the period 1970-74. She found that the median number of publications per year for publishing librar- ians was two. If book reviews were not in- cluded, the rate dropped to one publica- tion per year. For all academic librarians at the surveyed institutions, the publication rate was significantly less than one publi- cation per year. Of particular concern was the low output of librarians with five years or less experience (those within the tenure evaluation period). These librarians made up one-third of the surveyed staffs but produced only 18 percent of the publica- tions for that period. In 1980, Rayman and Goudy reported the results of a survey of sixty-eight li- braries holding membership in the Associ- ation of Research Libraries (ARL). They found that only about 15 percent of librari- ans in the responding libraries were re- quired to publish and that all librarians in this group had faculty status and were eli- gible for tenure. 4 Thomas G. English surveyed the sta- tus of librarians at the eighty-nine U.S. ac- ademic member-institutions of ARL for the year 1982 and discovered that few in- stitutions seemed to evaluate librarians under criteria used for instructional fac- ulty. The most frequent evaluation model used at institutions with faculty status for librarians required that the librarians "meet two distinct sets of criteria: one set designed to measure performance as li- brarians; the other set designed to me~­ sure performance as faculty. " 5 METHODOLOGY To determine whether or not research and publication criteria are major obsta- cles to academic librarians seeking tenure, a fourteen-question survey was sent to the May 1985 directors of the one hundred and forty- seven U.S. academic libraries that are full or associate members of the Center for Re- search Libraries (see appendix A). The first three questions requested informa- tion regarding the status of librarians as defined at each institution, the length of time that the status had been in effect, and the eligibility or ineligibility for tenure. The rest of the questionnaire was to be completed only by those institutions where librarians were eligible for tenure and were required to perform research and publish in order to achieve tenure. The questions dealt with the kinds of pub- lication standards to be met, the types of support available for librarians to carry out research, and the number of librarians who had and had not been granted tenure during the five years before receipt of the survey (mailed in April 1983). After follow-up mailings, 138 responses were received (94.5 percent response rate). One library director did not wish to participate in the survey, and eight other institutions did not respond. FINDINGS The data were grouped into four catego- ries for analysis: by aggregate data; by col- lege and university; by public arid private institution; and by tenure eligibility/pub- lishing requirement. Of the 138 respondents, 50 (36.2 per- cent) claimed to have faculty status equiv- alent to the teaching faculty (see table 1). More than half, 72 (52.2 percent), had an academic status separate or different from the teaching faculty. Only 16 (11.6 per- cent) claimed a nonacademic professional status. These results parallel the findings of English, Rayman and Goudy. How- ever, it is important to note that the au- thors here, unlike English, did not catego- rize each institution according to a predetermined definition of faculty sta- tus. Respondents to this study were asked whether or not they had "faculty status equivalent to the academic instructional faculty.'' This definition allows for the varying interpretations of the term 'I fac- ulty status" that may exist on different campuses. The authors were only con- cerned with whether or not librarians on a Publication Requirements 251 TABLE 1 LffiRARIAN STATUS-138 RESPONDENTS NonAcademic Equivalent Different Professional Faculty Status Academic Status Status Categories (50 Institutions) (72 Institutions) (16 Institutions) Other Total Public 44 51 50 Private 6 21 College 4 2 50 University 46 70 Tenure & 27 11 Publication Tenure &No 18 50 22 Publication No Tenure 5 39 given campus were categorized in a simi- lar manner to other faculty on that campus. Therefore, the faculty-status answers re- ported in the survey do not necessarily re- flect conformance or nonconformance to the ACRL definition of faculty status. It is significant that of the 70 institutions that responded to both English's survey and this survey, 62 indicated, in this survey, that they held the status for which they were categorized by English. Seven of the remaining 8, while categorized by English as having faculty status, indicated in this survey that their status was not equivalent to the instructional faculty. Sixty-four (46.6 percent) of the institu- tions have held their particular status for more than sixteen years. Thirty-three (23. 9 percent) of the respondents acquired their present status in the last eleven to fif- teen years, 24 (17 .4 percent) in the last six to ten years, and 13 (9 .4 percent) in the last five years. Four institutions (2.9 percent) did not know how long they have held their particular status. It is interesting to 72 72 72 5 0 16 138 11 0 2 0 16 138 14 0 0 0 3 16 138 13 0 note that 27 percent of all respondents have changed their status in the last ten years. Sixteen institutions have changed their librarians' status to nontenure track, 12 institutions have changed their status to tenure with no publication required, and 9 institutions have changed their tenure-track status to include publication. Similarly, English's survey revealed that institutions "were no longer inclined to shift librarians from non-faculty to faculty status, as was commonly done in the six- ties and early seventies. Rather, the few, recent changes reported were all in the op- posite direction, from faculty status to a non-faculty or modified faculty status. " 6 By a slight majority, 81 (58.7 percent) in- stitutions have tenure-track status for most or all of their librarians, while 57 (41.3 percent) do not. (For a comparison of this study with the English and Rayman and Goudy studies, consult table 2.) Of · those 81 institutions, 38 (46.9 percent) re- quire evidence of research and publication before a librarian can achieve tenure, and TABLE2 ELIGffiiLITY OF LffiRARIANS FOR TENURE Nontenure- Continuous Appointment Survey Tenure-Track Status Track Status (Different from Tenure) Ra~an& oudy 39/68 57% 29/68 43% English 38/89 42 .7%* 10/89 11.2% 41/89 46% MSU 81/138 58.7% 57/138 41.3% *This does not include a number of institutions that considered their "continuing appointments" tantamount to tenure . 252 College & Research Libraries 42 (53.1 percent) do not require publica- tion, although some indicated that pub- lishing is encouraged (see table 3). Based on the survey results, the vast majority (100 out of 138, or 72.5 percent) of the aca- demic librarians at the surveyed institu- tions were not required to show evidence of research and publication. Conse- quently, it is wise to bear in mind that the responses to the remaining questions on publishing requirements for tenure reflect practices at only a small group of institu- tions. Within the last five years, 329 librarians at the 38 responding institutions were re- TABLE 3 RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TENURE Survey Yes No Racman& oudy 10/68 14.7% 58/68 85.3% English MSU 38/81 46.9% 43/81 53.1% May 1985 viewed for tenure (see table 4). Sixty-one (18.5 percent) of these were not granted tenure; 268 (81.5 percent) achieved ten- ure. Thirty-five (57.4 percent) of those 61 librarians were denied tenure because of an inadequate research/publication rec- ord. Twenty-one (34.4 percent) were de- nied tenure for inadequate job perfor- mance and 10 (16.4 percent) for unknown reasons. Four (6.6 percent) were denied because of an inadequate service record (committee and professional service); and 1 person (1.6 percent) had an inadequate continuing education record. (In some cases more than one reason was given.) Of the 38 institutions that require re- search and publication, 97.4 percent gave credit for publishing books, chapters in books, and refereed journal articles in the field of library I information science. 7 Among the institutions, 89.5 percent gave credit for these publications outside the li- brary field. Conference papers within the field of library science were given credit at 97.4 percent of the institutions; 81.6 per- TABLE4 TENURE APPROVAL RATES (FIVE-YEAR PERIOD)* #of Denied # of Librarians %of Tenure Tenure Applying Approval Institution # Applications for Tenure Rate 1 3 13 76.9 2 1 6 83.3 3 1 3 66.7 4 3 20 85 5 1 10 90 6 2 7 71.4 7 5 20 75 8 1 5 80 9 1 15 93.3 10 5 14 64.3 11 2 ' 6 66.7 12 8 25 68 13 2 20 90 14 2 13 84.6 15 1 6 83.3 16 2 7 71.4 17 1 14 92.9 18 4 5 20 19 2 10 80 20 2 9 77.8 21 4 5 20 22 8 39 79.5 23 through 38 0 57 100 Total 61 329 Average 81.5% *For the thirty-eight responding institutions where librarians have tenure-track status and are required to publish. cent of the institutions gave credit for con- ference papers outside the library field. Unrefereed journal articles in the field were given credit by 89.5 percent of the in- stitutions; however, only 68.4 percent gave cr"dit for those publications in other fields. Book reviews in the field of library science were given credit by 84.2 percent of the institutions; book reviews outside the field of library science received credit at 73.7 percent of the institutions. In- house publications dealing with the li- brary science field received credit at 63.2 percent of the institutions, while only 42.1 percent of the institutions gave credit for publications in other fields. For other types of publications in the field of library science, 18.4 percent of the institutions gave librarians credit; within other fields, 13.2 percent of the institutions gave them credit. The authors did not query the weight given to one type of publication over another. Readers are referred to the report of a survey published in College & Research Libraries by Geahigan, Nelson, Saunders, and Woods. 8 None of the 38 institutions required that the librarians produce a specific number of publications. As a result, there were no re- sponses to the inquiry regarding .how the standards relative to the specific number of publications were applied to librarians, i.e., are they agreed upon individually or are they the same for all librarians? At 29 (76.3 percent) of the institutions, librarians are eligible for sabbaticals, and at 19 (50 percent), librarians are eligible for release time (see table 5). At 21 (52.6 per- cent) of the institutions, it was felt that the research and publication standards for li- brarians were different from those applied to the teaching faculty. Seventeen (44.7 percent) of the institutions felt that there were no differences. Survey TABLE 5 AVAILABILITY OF RELEASE TIME/RESEARCH LEAVE Yes Ra{;man& oudy 35/68 51% 33/68 English 72/89 80 .8% 17/89 MSU 19/38 50% 19/38 No 49% 19.2% 50% Publication Requirements 253 The library provided funding for librari- ans at 18 (47.4 percent) institutions, while at 20 (52.6 percent) of the libraries, it did not (see table 6). The colleges and univer- sities made funding available to librarians at 34 (89 .5 percent) of the institutions, 2 (5.3 percent) of the libraries were not eligi- ble, and 2 had no institutional funding. Survey Ra{;man& oudy English MSU TABLE6 AVAILABILITY OF RESEARCH FUNDING From Library From University 18/68 23% 40/68 51% 64/89 71.9% 18/38 47.4% 34/38 89.5% CONCLUSIONS 1. The responses provided by the insti- tutions in the sample support the hypoth- esis that the most frequent cause for librar- ians being denied tenure is an inadequate research and publication record. It should be noted that at some institutions, explicit reasons are rarely or never given by re- view boards when tenure applications are denied. Therefore, some of the respon- dents may only have been speculating about the reason(s) why their librarians were rejected (although none indicated that they were doing so). 2. The high tenure rate (81.5 percent) reported by the respondents who require research and publication for tenure (see table 5) compares very favorably with the tenure approval rates of other faculty. A study by Frank J. Atelsek and Irene L. Gomberg found that in 1978-79, 12,400 in- dividuals were formally reviewed for ten- ure nationwide, and 58 percent were ap- proved. 9 3. The high tenure approval rates for li- brarians required to publish are consistent from respondent to respondent, as only 2 out of 38 institutions (see table 2) reported approval rates of less than 64.3 percent (see table 5) . High tenure rates occurred regardless of factors such as availability of release time, sabbaticals, etc. 4. Based on the results of this study, it would appear that Watson's theory that li- 254 College & Research Libraries brarians who are required to publish may have problems achieving tenure is un- founded. It may be significant, however, that of the 37 respondents who changed their librarians' status during the last ten years, only 9 have adopted publication re- quirements for achieving tenure. By con- trast, 12 institutions adopted tenure-track status that does not require publication, and 16 institutions changed to nontenure- track status. The survey did not solicit in- May 1985 formation regarding the nature of, and reasons for, these changes. 10 5. Eighty-one (58 percent) of all there- spondents reported tenure track status for most or aM of their librarian positions, yet only 38 of these institutions require evi- dence of research and publication before granting tenure to librarians. Conse- quently, it would appear that tenure-track status for librarians does not always imply the requirement to publish. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. C. J. Schmidt, "Faculty Status in Academic Libraries: Retrospective and Prospect," in New Hori- zons for Academic Libraries, ed. R. D. Stueart and R. D. Johnson (New York: K. G. Saur, 1979), p.411. 2. Darrell L. Jenkins, M. Kathleen Cook, and Mary Anne Fox, "Research Development of Academic Librarians: One University's Approach," Journal of Academic Librarianship 7:83-86 (May 1981). 3. Paula de Simone Watson, "Publication Activity Among Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries 38:382 (September 1977) . 4. Ronald Rayman and Frank W. Goudy, "Research & Publication Requirements in University Li- braries," College & Research Libraries 41:43-48 Uanuary 1980). 5. Thomas G. English, ''Librarians Status in the Eighty-Nine U.S. Academic Institutions of the Asso- ciation of Research Libraries: 1982," College & Research Libraries 44:199-208 (May 1983). 6. English, "Librarian Status in U.S. Academic Institutions," p.207. 7. Priscilla Geahigan, Harriet Nelson, Stewart Saunders and others, "Acceptability of Non- Library/Information Science Publications in the Promotion & Tenure of Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries, 42: 571-75 (Nov. 1981). 8. One college with religious affiliation gave no credit to publishing done within the library science field. 9. Tenure Practices at Four-Year Colleges & Universities, by Frank J. Atelsek and Irene L. Gomberg, Higher Education Panel Report no . 48 (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1980), p.1-49. 10. It is possible that some or all of these changes were due to difficulties encountered by librarians attempting to meet publication requirements. APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE Name of Institution----------------------------- 1. Which of the following best describes the status of librarians at your institution? (Please check the appropriate responses.) __ a. faculty status equivalent to the academic instructional faculty __ b. academic status separate or different from the academic instructional faculty __ c. nonacademic professional status __ d. Other (please explain) 2. How long have the librarians at your institution had this status? __ 0-5 years __ 6-10 years __ 11-15 years __ 16 + years 3. Are your librarians eligible for tenure? __ yes __ no Publication Requirements 255 4. If librarians are eligible for tenure, must they show evidence of research and publication in order to achieve tenure? ___ yes ___ no If the answer to #4 is no, it is not necessary to go further. Please return the questionnaire as completed thus far. Than~ you. 5. If research and publication is required of librarians in order that they may earn tenure, for which of the following kinds of research do librarians receive credit? (Please check the appropriate re- sponse.) books or chapters in books refereed journal articles unrefereed journal articles conference papers book reviews in-house publications other (please specify) Library /information science topics & publications 6. Is there a specified number of publications that librarians are required to Topics & pubs. in other fields produce in order to achieve tenure? ___ yes ___ no 7. If a specified number of publications is required, please check the appro- priate response if the standards are either (a) agreed upon periodically be- tween each librarian and his/her supervisor, or (b) the same for all librari- ans. ___ a. ___ b. 8. Please check the appropriate response if librarians are eligible for (a) re- lease time, or (b) sabbaticals. ___ a. __ b. 9. Are the research and publication standards for librarians different from those applied to other faculty on campus in recognition of the librarians' different work responsibilities? ___ yes ___ no 10. Is funding available from the library for librarians to carry out research for publication? 11. If the institution makes funding available to academic faculty for research, are librarians also eligible to receive this funding? 12. At your institution, how many librarians have been reviewed for tenure in the last five years (or since librarians became eligible for tenure, if that was less than five years ago?) . 13. How many of those applicants were not granted tenure? ___ yes ___ no __ eligible ___ no funding _not eligible 14. Please indicate how frequently each of the following factors resulted in the rejection of an applica- tion for tenure. (For example, reason (a) may have been cited or inferred in four cases of rejection, so "4" should be entered next to (a). ___ a . inadequate research/publication record ___ b. inadequate job performance ___ c. inadequate service record (committee service, professional service) ___ d . inadequate continuing education record ___ e. unknown __f. other (please specify or comment) Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire. Your time and effort is greatly appreciated.- W. Bede Mitchell & L. Stanislava Swieszkowski. It's Your Choice . .. .;r1lnivt~rs• f, . • -03054_ An equal oppo11unlty/attmua· tive action employer · ACQUISITIONS HELP ' REt . ACQUISITIONS ASSISTAN~S n~ed ' Sible to handle purchase of foretgn mtcro- •O· form collections. Responsible for all !se correspondence with foreign micro- ~ publishers . handling currency ex- ' change , shipping and customs prob· • lems, and inspecting rolls and fiche for claims . Requirements Include flu - ency in at least three foreign lan- guages and high frustration tolerance. ~ing salary : $14,500 .. ·. REFERENCE LIBRARIAN : Res_P'!.'}>c~. sl~~e ~or .Q!~~~~~ ~ID\Y"" '';~-~ ,,, ai:tlees· e(i~a, "nivei$;~} lion and emnu..~ponumty 10 educa- ""'''"ent. SiTUATION WANTED. ' d · CLEARWATER PUBL f ,ro- PrOVide free ordert ISHIN_G CO. Will to r all foreign microform n~ servrce for any to~ 1cro- pany, on an su .• rom any com- cor~ ,:: search-~t the p~/:~t!~~-tree .title publ; P,. h lncfu~es InVOicing in U S .. ~~ pn~. chan. rc e spect100 of 11 • . ""'Iars rn· lllm,;• l nu-l. handling of aall r~lls . and fiche and ,o;:r l~n- d~nce . currency e!~Jlnn co~pon- en ·· .e. prng and customs P oblge and Ship- gu. required : $0 r ems. Salary stt · ·c . ~- ~ : ATALOGER · North · . · , College l 'b · . em Oregon c... , 1 . 1 rary IS seeking ;v ,..,.... ~ ~~~!Jf!~rtPtl.v- . ;,;;.,· . For your free acquisitions assistant, call Clearwater Publishing Co. collect at (212) 873-2100 or write to 1995 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10023. Don't you wish all your choices were this easy?