College and Research Libraries Librarians and Library Educators in the 1980s: Shared Interests, Cooperative Ventures Marianne Cooper and Shoshana Kaufmann A project was undertaken to examine the extent of shared interests and cooperative endeavors between library schools and their host academic libraries and to determine the state of relations between the two units on academic campuses. The role of librarians in library/information sci- ence education, the involvement of library school faculty in the libraries, and the extent and effectiveness of various channels of communication between them were investigated. Data were collected by interviewing administrative personnel in five metropolitan New York-area insti- tutions and by sending questionnaires to deans and directors of fifty-five institutions through- out the United States and Canada that had ALA-accredited library schools. uch has been said about the need for communication and cooperation between educators and practitioners in many pro- fessions, including librarianship. Unfor- tunately, limited interaction, with a de- gree of tension, has been the hallmark of the relationship in librarianship for dec- ades. Library science professors and library professionals belong to two separate orga- nizational units with different missions and needs in academic institutions. While obviously related, they are often per- ceived as one by the academic commu- nity, further heightening the tension be- tween them. The chasm between the two units has deepened in recent years be- cause of greatly increased demands. Both librarians and library school faculty are forced to compete with their colleagues in other departments in the ''publish or per- ish'' syndrome in many institutions. Both units have been affected by the deteriorat- ing economics of academe and rapid changes in information technologies. Also, administrators are increasingly tak- ing a hard look at professional schools and reevaluating their place and mission in the university. This has led to changes in or- ganizational structures and closings of li- brary schools in recent years and has forced some administrators of the two units to reexamine their relationships. An extensive search of the literature (see Bibliography) has revealed that while Marianne Cooper is an Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Library and Infonnation Studies and Shoshana Kaufmann is Professor and Associate Director of the Benjamin Rosenthal Library at Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, New York, 1136 7. The study upon which this paper is based was sup- ported by a Council on Library Resources Cooperative Faculty/Librarian Grant. Their support is very much appre- ciated. The authors are also pleased to acknowledge the individuals interviewed and thank them for their efforts and for sharing their viewpoints frankly and candidly: their contributions to this paper were indeed substantial. Additionally, the authors are grateful to those who responded to their request for infonnation by completing and returning the questionnaire. That infonnation provided .the authors with a broad perspective from which to draw conclusions. 164 some specific aspects of the relationship between library practitioners and educa- tors have been examined, the totality of needs and relationships that exist be- tween library schools and their host li- braries in the academic political process has not been explored. Internship and field work experience are the subjects from the broad spectrum of possible cooperative ventures that have generated the most interest among practi- tioners, educators, and researchers. Their history and reasons for renewed interest in them in the 1980s, including the rise of post-M.L.S. programs and research resi- dencies, have been described. Addition- ally, researchers have dealt with the mu- tually beneficial aspects of faculty and professional development, the need for streamlined educational programs for the information age, and the alleged lack of communication between professors and the profession. Only Jack Dalton addressed directly the state of relations between the schools and their host academic libraries by sending a qualitative open-ended letter of inquiry to a limited sample of deans and directors in the early 1970s. He gathered information pertaining to shared space and resources, staff relations, librarians as teachers, and teachers as librarians. His, however, was not a systematic attempt to survey both parties within a given institution or to cor- relate responses by commonality of affilia- tion. In view of the many new develop- ments, it is time to ascertain existing patterns and practices and to propose new ideas and structures that may promote in- teraction and communication between the two units so that each can increase its util- ity to the parent institution. Supported by a Council On Library Re- sources Cooperative Faculty/Librarian Grant, the authors undertook a project to ascertain the relationships and institu- tional needs that exist in the 1980s be- tween library schools and their host li- braries in the academic political process in the New York metropolitan area. This arti- cle reports on the following aspects of the study: 1. The range of methods and tech- niques that libraries and library schools in Libraries/Library Educators 165 the New York metropolitan area have jointly developed to promote a dialogue and interaction and to fill identified needs 2. Factors that appear to increase coop- eration between the two units 3. Factors that appear to create conflict and to hinder joint efforts between the two units 4. The impact that various forms of in- teraction or lack thereof have on the edu- cation of future library/information pro- fessionals We selected five institutions for in- depth study: Columbia University, Long Island University, Pratt Institute, Queens College of the City University of New York, and St. John's University. These form a particularly interesting sample be- cause they vary considerably in age, size, history and tradition, administrative structure, and number of campuses. They also represent the private and public sec- tors, and secular and parochial institu- tions of higher learning. These attributes and the compact geographic locale offered a unique opportunity to conduct the in- vestigation. Data collection, lasting approximately six months from mid-November 1986 through late April 1987, became a multi- faceted effort, since the aim of the study was to ascertain the current state of affairs between two separate but obviously re- lated organizational units within an aca- demic entity. Detailed information about New York institutions was gathered by conducting twenty-three interviews with a broad sample of academic personnel, in- cluding deans and directors as well as those to whom they report, such as execu- tive vice-presidents, academic vice- presidents, and associate provosts. Addi- tional viewpoints were obtained from library school librarians and/or library sci- ence bibliographers. Input from these in- dividuals was invaluable for gaining a re- alistic and comprehensive picture of the local situation. In order to obtain, as background, the broad national picture, we mailed identi- cal questionnaires to the deans of fifty-five accredited library schools in the United States and Canad~ and to the directors of their host libraries. The identical survey 166 College & Research Libraries instrument was used to determine the ex- tent to which our respondents' assess- ments of various issues and factors agreed. The response rate was unusually high: 86 percent from directors and 91 per- cent from deans. Data thus collected were entered into a standard spreadsheet com- puter program [LOTUS 1-2-3] and ana- lyzed for this study. Concern and interest in the subject matter and the homogeneity of the sample were, undoubtedly, contrib- uting factors to the high return rate of the questionnaires. LIBRARIANS AND LIBRARY EDUCATION Librarians as Teachers Over the years librarians have aligned themselves with the teaching profession on all levels of the enterprise. While fight- ing for faculty status, for example, librari- ans frequently argued that the only differ- ence between classroom and library instruction is the location. Since emphasis on providing bibliographic instruction and end user training in the various as- pects of information and data manipula- tion and searching has increased, examin- ing the various teaching roles librarians play in academe was a natural and neces- sary step for this project. Most deans, directors, and administra- tors at the five institutions in the regional sample consider teaching by librarians to be a contribution to the profession and to the library school. Nevertheless, they cau- tion that while it broadens librarians' hori- zons and enriches their careers, it can also have a negative effect on inadequately funded and understaffed libraries. Some administrators also indicate that while they favor librarians teaching specialized courses, such as law librarianship, they do not approve of them teaching other courses, whether basic or advanced. They reason that many librarians do not hold Ph.D . degrees and thus often lack training in research methodology. Their teaching tends to be application oriented with nei- ther an adequate theoretical balance nor the perspective gained from ongoing re- search and publishing. Because of their central location in a large metropolitan area, rich in cultural March 1989 and academic institutions and human re- sources, the five institutions have an ex- tensive pool of potential adjunct instruc- tors available to supplement their faculty. Still, on the average, one to three librari- ans from the host libraries teach in their in- stitutions' library school each year, usu- ally offering courses in specialized topics such as government documents or legal resources. Others are periodically asked to give guest lectures. Although most di- rectors indicate that, schedules permit- ting, they would like to teach, in reality none was found to do so. Three metropoli- tan area directors are listed in their schools' bulletins by name and title; two are also noted as adjunct professors. Compensation for librarians who teach as adjuncts is often impractical because of institutional regulations that prohibit pay- ment to an individual twice by the same agency. This was indicated in both the in- terviews and the questionnaire responses. Possible solutions include granting ad- juncts release time from their regular jobs, which in turn is paid for by the library school as a contribution to the library, or having librarians teach after normal work- ing hours and providing them with com- pensatory time. In both cases, however, the parameters of the regular positions re- main unaltered, leading in reality to sub- stantially increased work loads without additional monetary rewards. Clearly, compensation can become a barrier to co- operation between practitioners and edu- cators in certain organizational contexts. This is the most likely reason why schools prefer to keep their options open while de- ciding whether they should hire adjuncts from the outside or utilize available insti- tutional human resources in filling ad- junct lines. Naturally, where payment re- strictions do not exist, librarians can have dual appointments and be paid for teach- ing according to their rank or position within the prevailing institutional classifi- cation system. The national sample indicates that li- brarians teach regularly scheduled courses in library schools in 65 percent of the institutions. Orientation lectures are s~arly common, occurring in 60 percent of the cases. Guest lectureship is an activ- ity of which everyone approves; over 90 percent of the respondents indicate that li- brarians participate. In contrast to the fre- quent occurrence of the above solo in- structional activities, team teaching is relatively uncommon. An opportunity for valuable cooperation is, apparently, being missed. Whether library science students re- ceive bibliographic instruction as part of their curricula and the extent to which it is a cooperative effort between librarians and library school faculties are important factors in assessing the relationship be- tween the two units. Our findings indicate that nowhere in the New York sample is bibliographic instruction formally part of the curriculum; it also appears to be a low priority for library schools nationally. Uni- formly, schools neither offer bibliographic instruction to their students themselves nor do they take advantage of the instruc- tional services available from their institu- tions' libraries. Faculty with expertise in the field might help design a course for the library's use but they will not participate in its execution. This is, in part, because compensation for teaching undergraduate courses is not as high as for graduate courses. All libraries in our metropolitan sample offer bibliographic instruction to under- graduate and to some graduate students at their institutions. Except for one institu- tion where every freshman is expected to pass a basic library skills course, none re- quire it, and it usually bears no credit. Thus, it is ironic that many undergraduate and some graduate and professional stu- dents at the five institutions routinely par- ticipate in bibliographic instruction some- time during their education while most library science students, who are them- selves likely to provide bibliographic in- struction during their professional career, will not have benefited from such offering at all. It seems that these students are shortchanged just because their field of specialization is library/information sci- ence .. Another potential vehicle for coopera- tion between libraries and library schools is internship. For the purposes of this study, it is defined as a credit-bearing pro- Libraries/Library Educators 167 11 all interviewees consider in- ternship programs important for training future professionals and would like to expand them in their institutions. 11 gram that combines classroom instruction and practicum for which students gener- ally do not receive financial compensa- tion. Three institutions (60 percent) in the metropolitan area and 70 percent of the schools nationwide offer such programs. The remaining two New York schools (40 percent) offer students programs they re- fer to as internships whereby students re- ceive a stipend for supervised work/study experience in the library. Regardless of the differences, all interviewees consider in- ternship programs important for training future professionals and would like to ex- pand them in their institutions. Participa- tion in internship programs is, uniformly, not a required component of the curricu- lum except in the school library/media center specialization, where it is manda- tory for certification in most states. Deans and directors agree that intern- ships must be academically justified and must provide interns with appropriate professional-level experience; the tempta- tion to use interns to fill short-term press- ing staff needs should be avoided. All ad- vocate a strict interviewing, selection and review process, and recognize the right of the library administration to make the fi- nal decision to accept or reject each nomi- nee. Opinions are strongly divided about how successful internship programs are as joint cooperative undertakings be- tween the two units (see figure 1). Deans, directors and administrators regionally rate internship programs in their institu- tions from moderately successful to un- successful. Nationally, about 50 percent of the respondents indicate moderate or great success while about 40 percent con- sider their program unsuccessful. There- maining 10 percent offered no opinions. The perceived lack of success of intern- 60 50 p 40 E R c 30 E N T 20 10 0 -~ .... -~ -~ ~ ~ !.EVALUATION OF" INTERNSHIP PROGRAt.f' VERY SUCCESSFUL - NATIONAL SAMPLE - MODERATELY SUCCESSFUL D SCHOOLs• RESPONSES III LIBRARIES• RESPONSES I NEEDS CHANGE FIGURE 1 - UNSUCCESSFUL FIGURE 1 ~ 0'1 Ql) (") 0 = n> ~ ~ ~ Ul n> ~ r-"4 .... 0"' a .... n> Ul a:: ~ ~ \C Ql) \C ships is attributable to several factors. Many students prefer internships outside the academic environment, believing that jobs are more plentiful in nonacademic li- braries. As a result, the available local pool of applicants is often considerably dimin- ished. Others do not consider the experi- . ence to be professionally meaningful. The reason most commonly offered, however, arises from the primary mission of the li- braries. Their purpose is to serve broad in- stitutional needs, and meeting educa- tional needs of library school interns places an additional, often intolerable, burden on financial resources and sched- ules of the already short supply of quali- fied supervisors. Thus, the inability to commit adequate supervisory time and ef- fort often becomes a major barrier to the success of internship programs. Career counseling and mentoring of fu- ture professionals is another activity in which librarians and library school faculty might productively cooperate. Assisting future librarians in preparing for their ca- reers is particularly important at a time when the information world is changing rapidly and requirements for information specialists in academic libraries in the next decade will be drastically different from today' s. Directors and administrators em- phasize the need for librarians to provide guidance in the students' socialization process, considering this an opportunity to make a contribution to their profession. In view of the strong agreement on the importance of career counseling and men- toring, it is surprising that no formal pro- grams for this activity exist either region- ally or nationally. Naturally, librarians individually in all institutions offer advice to stud~nts informally, when requested. Initiative for establishing the mentor- student relationship often originates with the library school librarian who is most aware of the students' needs. Strengthen- ing and formalizing career counseling pro- grams will help librarians and library school faculty to fulfill their professional obligation to their future colleagues. Librarians as Students: Continuing Education At a time when the M.L.S. degree is in- Libraries/Library Educators 169 creasingly considered a permit to enter the profession rather than the end of all edu- cational requirements for practice in the profession, continuing education has be- come the major vehicle for ongoing pro- fessional development. Paraprofessional and clerical employees also need extra training so that they too can keep up with new developments. This is fertile ground for cooperation between practitioners and educators on campus. All New York institutions offer doctoral and/or advanced certificate programs that attract students from their libraries' pro- fessional staff. Some also offer mini- courses and workshops that are open to all employees. The number of librarians par- ticipating in the various programs ranges from 0 to 3 per institution annually. Na- tionally, library directors indicate that continuing professional education is thriving at over 70 percent of the institu- tions and that, on the average, 2.7 profes- sional librarians and 6.7 support staff per institution are enrolled per year. All metropolitan-area institutions offer tuition exemption to their full-time profes- sional and nonprofessional staff. The fig- ures nationally show that somewhat more than half of the institutions offer this bene- fit to professionals and somewhat less than half offer it to support staff. Clearly, the availability of this tuition-free educa- tion is an incentive for self-improvement. Schools have a golden opportunity to ex- tend their services to their parent institu- tion by becoming a major provider of con- tinuing education and training opportuni- ties. LIBRARY SCHOOL FACULTY AND THE LIBRARY The Library as a Laboratory for Instruction Library schools have traditionally uti- lized their host library and its resources for instructional purposes. Whether the na- ture and extent of this long-standing prac- tice of cooperation are changing as a result of external developments, such as the ad- vent of technologies in the management and operation of libraries, is an important aspect of this study. Like most academic libraries, those in 170 College & Research Libraries our local sample use electronic technolo- gies for many of their operations. The same technologies have also become an integral component of library school cur- ricula. Therefore, sharing of hardware by the two units would seem logical and cost- effective from an institutional perspective. Yet all the schools in our metropolitan sample and the majority of schools nation- ally have their own computer laboratories and independent access to major biblio- graphic utilities and database vendors for the use of their students. Deans, directors, and administrators agree that such dupli- cation is inevitable and even necessary be- cause of the two units' differing missions and goals. They believe that educational and operational requirements should not be mixed for reasons of economy. The chances for success and mutual satisfac- tion in a shared environment are minimal. Duplication of equipment does not usu- ally occur, however, where turnkey sys- tems are used. The need for hands-on ex- perience is minimal, and is usually satisfied by faculty bringing their classes to the library for demonstrations once or twice a semester. Thus, technology neither fosters nor hinders cooperation between librarians and library school faculty. In fact, both groups agree that sharing equipment is neither beneficial nor advantageous to them or to students. As anticipated, the library's primary laboratory use still centers on the teaching of reference and subject bibliography. There is a high degree of concurrence among respondents in the high usage rat- ings they give these two teaching special- ties. (See figure 2.) The longstanding part- nership between the two units in this area is as strong as ever. Collection Development Primary responsibility for library/infor- mation science collection development both in New York and nationally rests ei- ther with a full-time library school librar- ian or with a bibliographer who also se- lects for other disciplines. Three of the schools studied in New York (60 percent) have full-time library science librarians, two of whom have subject Ph.D.s There- March 1989 maining two schools have part-time selec- tors. Of those responding, nationally, 44 percent of the selectors are full-time and 25 percent part-time. Library school faculty are involved in the selection process in all five New York institutions and in over 50 percent of the sample nationally. The degree to which they have input into the selection process depends on whether the library has a full- time library science librarian, the library's collection policy, and the size of its budget. Most New York library schools are small, averaging eight full-time faculty members, and, in contrast to other aca- demic departments, do not appoint a fac- ulty liaison to the library. Even in the school that has a faculty liaison, his/her role is coordination rather than primary selection. In institutions where the library science librarian also selects in other disci- plines, directors welcome greater involve- ment in the selection process on the part of the school's faculty. The availability of funds in academic li- braries to support teaching and research programs often becomes a point of con- tention between faculty and practitioners. It was, therefore, important to ascertain the relative size of library/information sci- ence materials budgets vis-a-vis total insti- tutionallibrary budgets. Nearly all direc- tors locally and nationally indicated that the allocation constitutes 5 percent or less of the total library materials budget. How- ever, a sizeable number of the deans na- tionally (22 percent) reported that their budgets exceed 15 percent of the library's total allocation even though directors of their host libraries put the figure at 5 per- cent. General naivete and noninterest in overall library budgeting could account for the misconception. Faculty Development We described above several programs that enable librarians to continue their professional development. There are pro- grams available to faculty to obtain similar results. These include participation in ac- tivities sponsored by various organiza- tions, working in reference or managerial positions in host libraries, and serving as consultants to other library agencies. EXTENSIVE 1 00-~ 90-~ ILIBRARY AS LABORATORYI so-~ .. EXTENT OF USE {") - NATIONAL SAMPLE - 70 -~ ..c===;~~~~ SOMETIMES so-~ so-~ RARELY 30-- 20·- 1 o-~ NEVER o~--..,., REFERENCE SUBJECT BIBLIOGRAPHY FIGURE2 AUTOMATION D SCHOOLS• RESPONSES m LIBRARIES• RESPONSES A/V FIGURE 2 172 College & Research Libraries Deans; directors, and administrators be- lieve that in order to continue to be effec- tive educators, library school faculty need periodic updating. None of those inter- viewed expressed a preference for the type or form of developmental activity. Specifically, the host library was not sin- gled out as the most effective or exclusive agency. Many individuals who have not kept pace with developments and whom directors refer to as 11 divorced from the real world'' have been steadily retiring from the institutions in our local sample. Recognizing the need to remain current, faculty from three of the library schools in New York undertook a notable coopera- tive venture during 1981/82, one that did not involve their host libraries directly. With funding provided by the Exxon Foundation and the Council on Library Resources, they jointly hired outside con- sultants to bring them up to date on the latest developments in information sci- ence and technology. All evaluations were positive and the experience was deemed a success. Three faculty members at one of the schools benefited from another develop- ment program that, once again, did not in- volve their host library. They were gradu- ates of the 1984 and 1986 Institute on Research Libraries for Library and Infor- mation Science Faculty. This project was also funded by the Council on Library Re- sources, but operated by the Association of Research Libraries. Although the im- mediate goal of this undertaking is to build closer working relationships be- tween educators and research librarians, the long-term aim is to assist library school faculty in the preparation of future aca- demic and research librarians. A somewhat different, mutually benefi- cial experience took place in one of the other New York institutions. A library school faculty member with expertise in cataloging spent a year as a consultant in the host library's cataloging department while continuing to teach in the library school. The following year, during his sabbatical leave, he served as head of the department, a position to which he has since been appointed permanently. Al- though the school lost a valuable faculty March 1989 member, both dean and director agree that this has been the most successful co- operative venture between the two units to date. In addition to providing new lead- ership within the library, it created closer working relations between the two facul- ties and demonstrated that movement be- tween the two sectors not only is possible but can work to the best advantage of both. Approximately twelve to fifteen faculty members in the New York metropolitan area have participated in various develop- ment projects during the period of this in- vestigation. Clearly, it is an important ef- fort if library school students are to be equipped with the right tools to work in the rapidly changing information arena. SHARED INTERESTS AND JOINT ENDEAVORS ]oint Research and Publishing, Conferences and Workshops, and Committees Three major areas of activity might lend themselves to cooperation and interaction between librarians and educators: joint re- search and publishing, organizing and participating in local conferences, and serving on institutional committees. In view of the many common concerns of the two units and the numerous issues relating to academic and research librari- anship, it is surprising that so little joint r~search has been produced at the five New York institutions in recent years. Only two institutions report cooperative projects by practitioner/educator teams- research dealing with indexing and online searching, and the present study. The na- tional sample supports this finding and shows that this activity is a low-priority item among the respondents. Deans and directors offer various rea- sons for the almost total absence of joint research at their institutions. While library school faculty are all affected by the 11 pub- lish or perish" syndrome, guidelines for librarians differ greatly. Some institutions do not require publications, others require it only for promotion to senior ranks, while at one institution librarians must publish to be considered for tenure and promotion to any rank. There seems to be no clearly stated incentive and advantage to pursuing joint research at this time, al- though administrators at some of the insti- tutions are beginning to encourage mem- bers of both units to concentrate their research efforts on issues that will ad- vance institutional goals and objectives. Topics mentioned include information and archival management and electronic publishing. Arranging local conferences and work- shops provides another potential vehicle for cooperation between the two units. The number of such jointly sponsored events in both the metropolitan and na- tional samples has been small in recent years. Some were initiated by the schools, while others resulted from grass roots ef- forts by either unit, without planning by deans or directors. Librarians participated primarily by attending and sometimes by organizing sessions or presenting papers, while educators tended to be program co- ordinators or presenters of research. Less formal endeavors such as career days for students and alumni of the school and convocations for new students also pro- vided a forum for members of the two units to exchange ideas and form relation- ships. Educators and practitioners in New York and nationwide regularly serve to- gether on institutional committees. There is interaction between the two units through various ad hoc committees as well. Wherever a library committee ap- pointed by the institution's governing body exists, it usually includes a member of the library school faculty who provides input in policy matters and often acts as li- aison between the library and the govern- ing body. Library science librarians, espe- cially in institutions with separate library school collections, through their member- ship on the schools' curriculum and/or in- structional committees, provide a strong link between the two units. Oearly, New York findings are representative of the na- tional picture regarding potential for co- operation in the above three areas. Educa- tors and librarians in the same institution interact only to a very limited degree; they apparently have other priorities. Libraries/Library Educators 173 Employment of Library School Graduates As part of the investigation of relation- ships between library schools and their host libraries we sought to determine whether libraries in our sample hire grad- uates of their library schools, and whether the chances of these graduates for em- ployment were better, equal, or worse than those of candidates who graduated from other library schools. All five New York institutions employ graduates of their local library school. In fact, they constitute between 10 to 50 per- cent of the library staff, with larger num- bers in the older institutions. Directors and academic administrators uniformly believe that giving preference to one's own graduates results in inbreeding and is thus a disservice to the students, the insti- tution and the profession. They all claim not to give preferential treatment and to strive for diversity and excellence in their staffs. As new administrators and staff are increasingly being recruited nationally, there is growing diversification of back- ground and education among younger li- brarians and those hired more recently. Unlike directors and administrators, New York deans are far less similar in their opinions concerning their institutions' li- braries hiring their schools' graduates . While they recognize directors' needs for national recruitment to achieve healthy staff diversification, they nevertheless ex- press satisfaction that many of the li- braries' professionals are former students of their respective schools. They also claim that library schools are dynamic, continu- ously changing organizational units due to faculty turnover, new deans, and a con- tinuously revised curriculum. Therefore, they believe that libraries can and should continue to hire graduates of their institu- tions' schools without fear of inbreeding and parochialism. Data from the broad sample support the New York findings. Eighty percent of the libraries hire graduates of their institu- tions' library schools "regularly" and "occasionally," as illustrated in figure 3. In 65 percent of these libraries local gradu- ates make up a substantial portion of the library staff. 50·~ p E 30·· R c E N 20 T . 10·1- o~--- fLIBRARIES HIRE THEIR SCHOOLS' GRADUATE§~ - NATIONAL SAMPLE - 0 SCHOOLs• RESPONSES m LIBRARIES• RESPONSES ~-.aw.u.~-~-~nlmiiHIIIHII REGULARLY OCCASIONALLY RARELY NEVER F'IGURE J FIGURE 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As already noted, all New York institu- tions offer free tuition to their clerical em- ployees. This institutional policy in part accounts for the fact that all libraries em- ploy several professionals who attended library school while working as clerks or paraprofessionals in the library. As the shortage of qualified professionals be- comes more apparent and tuition con- tinues to rise, this interaction between the two units is likely to continue and expand. However, as greater emphasis is placed on diversity and more librarians are re- cruited nationally, future graduates will increasingly compete with outside candi- dates and will no longer receive preferen- tial treatment because of their work expe- rience in the library. Personnel Matters Library schools and their host libraries are administratively separate units in all five New York institutions. Schools, as ac- ademic departments with an educational mission, and libraries, whose mission is service to the institutions' community, re- port to different administrators, and their units are part of different divisions, aca- demic or otherwise, of their universities. The two units have separate committees dealing with personnel and budget mat- ters and there is no formal interaction be- tween them. Opinions of deans and direc- tors, and sometimes faculty and staff, are, however, often solicited informally on prospective hires, particularly those with specialized expertise, as well as during tenure and promotion deliberations. Deans and directors are frequently asked to serve on search committees for their counterparts. This occurred at three of the institutions studied but did not guarantee eventual close relations be- tween the two individuals in any case. The finalist at one institution, for example, had been nominated for the position by his counterpart but later the initially close re- lationship was replaced by indifference and minimal interaction between the indi- viduals and their units. Findings are simi- lar in the other cases also, indicating that the initial spirit of cooperation may wane primarily for political reasons. Libraries/Library Educators 175 The national data fully support the New York findings. A pattern of minimal inter- action exists between the two units in re- cruitment, tenure, promotion, and other personnel matters. Clearly, maintaining their integrity and independence is a high priority for both the library and the school _and it is sanctioned by the academic hier- archy. 11 A pattern of minimal interaction ex- ists between the two units in recruit- ment, teriure, promotion, and other personnel matters." Building Projects In an era of shrinking budgets for aca- demic institutions, new building pro- grams are rare, and even major renova- tions of existing structures are uncommon occurrences. Our New York sample is, therefore, rather unique since it includes private institutions that have in recent years renovated library and library school buildings, and a public institution that has built a new, state-of-the-art library that is shared with the school. New library build- ings, especially those that are jointly occu- pied, and renovations of existing build- ings offer unusual opportunities for interaction between librarians and educa- tors both in the planning process and after completion of construction. Unfortu- nately, however, the interaction was found to be limited both locally and na- tionally. Such projects do offer other ad- vantages, however, including increased campus visibility and awareness of either or both units. CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION Communication, the channels through which it is conducted, and their perceived effectiveness and importance contribute to the relationships that emerge between units in any organization. Findings both locally and nationally indicate that li- braries and library schools communicate 176 College & Research Libraries with each other through various channels, both formal and informal, in the perfor- mance of their responsibilities. Deans and directors expressed overwhelming prefer- ence for informal channels and agreed that these are the most effective means for accomplishing tasks. Nationally, they rated mutual distribution of newsletters and publications the most frequently used and most effective formal channel of com- munication. Regardless of the means, however, both groups of administrators stressed the need for maintaining open communication between themselves and their units. Responses from forty-seven li- braries and fifty schools in the national sample are presented in figures 4 and 5. It is noteworthy that, for most cases, schools consistently rate both frequency of usage and effectiveness higher for all types of communication than libraries do. The library school librarian/library sci- ence bibliographer is considered by both parties and the librarians themselves to be the primary and most effective formal link in the communication process between the two units . Three institutions in New York have full-time library school librari- ans. At the other two, a reference librarian is responsible for the selection and main- tenance of library science materials, as well as for materials in other disciplines. Deans, directors, and administrators all stress the role of library school librarians both as representatives of the director and as links with the schools. Librarians at- tend all faculty meetings and are ex officio members of the schools' curriculum and/ or instructional committees. All involved agree that this type of communication cre- ates closer and more open relations be- tween the library and the library s<;hool, but caution that communication does not necessarily ensure good relations between the top administrators of the two units. In the two institutions which do not have full-time library school librarians, in- teractio·ns are less formalized and less fre- quent. Deans and directors claim to meet informally when issues of common con- cern arise, but there is neither regular rep- resentation at department meetings nor exchange of minutes. Information flows primarily betw~en the top administrators March 1989 and filters down as they deem appropri- ate. Deans and directors at institutions with- out full-time library school librarians are pragmatic about the effect the absence of this position has on their relations. They realize that it is politically important for the library school to have a separate li- brary science collection with a full-time li- brarian managing it. At the same time, they are cognizant of the fact that in many academic institutions financial constraints rule out the ideal and force them to live with acceptable compromises. The whole academic library, in their view, is a labora- tory, and they encourage their students to use it as such. They do not necessarily feel that the lack of a separate library science collection and a library science librarian is a deprivation for their students. CONCLUSION Relations between library schools and their host academic libraries are complex and unique. While a common professional bond exists between them, each has dif- ferent missions and goals that limit their possible cooperation. The old conflict be- tween theoreticians and practitioners re- mains an obstacle to working together. In- stitutional and state regulations as well as general budgetary constraints may create additional barriers and further impede progress toward shared programs and joint ventures between the two units. Nevertheless, all academic administra- tors, deans, and directors who provided information for this study believe that in- teraction and cooperation between the two units are desirable and feasible. Power in the academic environment has, in recent years, become synonymous with ownership of the latest technology. Both units are heavily dependent on com- puters and each has its own equipment. In the context of this study, such duplication was found to be a barrier to joint efforts at times. Information technologies, how- ever, can also become an incentive for col- laboration. They offer the two units nu- merous opportunities to work together while simultaneously furthering their goals and objectives. The following are specific recommenda- 100 ~ 90 E 80 Q U70 ~ 60 ~50 o"'o r 30 u2o S1o E !CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATIOft ................ ALWAYS - NATIONAL SAMPLE - Cl SCHOOLS' RESPONSES 0D LIBRARIES' RESPONSES ·•············• SOMETIMES ················ RARELY 0 ..&..-~ooo-- f#.~:~ ~~Q~ ~~~0~ ,~o V.~~~~'-~ ~' ~~~~ ~~~ ,_,.,.t# f#. .. ~ ~~ ~~ o~ •"" v~ ~~· FIGURE4 100 90 E F" 80 F" 70 E c 60 T I 50 v ~0 E N 30 E s s fCHANNELS OF COMMUNICATIOft ................ IMPORTANT - NATIONAL SAMPLE- D SCHOOLS' RESPONSES ID LIBRARIES' RESPONSES FIGURE 5 MODERATELY ················ IMPORTANT tions that the authors believe would pro- mote cooperation, communication, and · interaction between library schools and their host libraries while also improving the education of future library/informa- tion professionals. The concept of the host academic library as a laboratory for the library school needs to be substantially expanded. Rather than serving merely as the setting for the teach- ing of reference and subject bibliography, the library should assume a role similar to that of teaching hospitals, where future professionals learn first-hand the practice of their chosen craft. Current library school graduates have limited knowledge and experience with the realities that man- agement frequently faces, including budget cuts, problem employees, and vandalism, as well as new building pro- grams and the design and implementation of innovative services. These and other is- sues are ideal subjects for a new compo- nent of the curriculum. Librarians can and should contribute more appreciably to the education of libra- ry/information science students on their campuses. Institutional barriers to proper financial compensation for librarians who teach in their library school should be eliminated. Internships, considered by all deans and directors to be important for ca- reer development, should become a re- quirement for all library/information sci- ence students who have no experience in the field, not just for those specializing in the school library/media center area. Deans and directors must make adminis- trators aware of the importance of intern- ship to the educational process so that the major barrier, the shortage of qualified su- pervisors in the library, can be overcome. Libraries must be adequately supported by their parent institutions to allow their professional staff to devote time and at- tention to the proper supervision of stu- dent interns. Librarians with distinct specialties should be formally enlisted by the schools to serve as mentors/advisors to those wishing to pursue simila·r paths. Provid- ing career guidance to their students is a major responsibility of educational insti- tutions. Therefore, taking advantage of lo- Libraries/Library Educators 179 cal experts should ease their burden while simultaneously fostering closer relations between the two units. Bibliographic instruction should be- come a formal and integral component of the library/information science curricu- lum. Students need to be exposed to both theory and practiCe, since most of them will be expected to provide this service to their clientele, regardless of the type of li- brary in which they will be employed. En- listing the host library staff to provide in- struction would be a logical avenue of cooperation between the two units. Diversity in libraries' employment prac- tices should continue. However, as long as even one local graduate is hired, schools need a mechanism to monitor his/her career regularly. These graduates could contribute appreciably to the educa- tional process by serving as role models and mentors to those enrolled in the pro- gram. Simultaneously, they would repre- sent a significant link between the library and the school. In view of the ever-increasing need for continuing education and professional de- velopment of both practitioners and edu- cators, schools and their host libraries should become barrier-free centers for members of both units for such activities. While tuition-exemption policies enable li- brarians in most institutions to further their education in their schools, academic administrators need to provide the means and incentives to encourage educators to participate in professional development and to accept their host libraries as viable settings for such efforts. To survive and flourish library schools and their host libraries must forge a politi- cal alliance while maintaining their auton- omy. Together they would have a stronger voice on campus and be better able to exert influence and generate fund- ing for various joint ventures to support and further the goals and mission of their parent institution. In order to explore ave- nues of how these recommendations might best be implemented as well as how other issues dealing with relationships be- tween the two units might best be ad- dressed, a broadly based examination of the topic should be undertaken by the As- 180 College & Research Libraries sociation of Library and Information Sci- ence Education or the American Library Association, with the Council on Library March 1989 Resources or other national funding agen- cies providing financial support. BIBLIOGRAPHY Battin, Patricia. "Developing University and Research Library Professionals: A Director's Perspec- tive." American Libraries 14:22-25 Oanuary 1983). Coburn, Louis. Classroom and Field: The Internship in American Library Education. Flushing, N.Y.: Queens College, 1980. Conant, Ralph W. The Conant Report: A Study of the Education of Librarians. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980. Dain, Phyllis. "The Profession and the Professors." Library Journal105:1701-07 (September 1, 1980). Dalton, Jack. "The Library and the Library School: Some Ruminations on Relationships." The Aca- demicLibrary. EssaysinHonorofGuyR. Lyle. Ed. by Evan I. Farber and Ruth Walling. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1974, p.24-38. Dougherty, Richard M., and W. P. Lougee. "Research Library Residency; A New Model for Profes- sional Development." Library Journal108:1322-24 Ouly 1983). Dyer, Esther, and Daniel O'Connor. "Crisis in Library Education." Wilson Library Bulletin 57(10):860-63 (1983). Hill, Fred E., and Robert Hauptmann. "A New Perspective on Faculty Status." College and Research Libraries 47:156-59 (March 1986). Holley, E. G. "Extended Library Education Programs in the U.S." Advances in Librarianship 11:51-76 (1981). Martin, Susan K. "Library Education: An Administrator's View." Library Journal111: 115-17 (February 15, 1986). Research Libraries and Library Schools. Proceedings of a Meeting of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries and the Canadian Council of Library Schools. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, June 9, 1982. Stueart, Robert D. Cooperation Between Library Schools and the Profession. Paper presented at the Greater Boston Public Library Administrators Meeting. Boston, Mass: September 18, 1975. White, Herbert S. "The Library Education Accreditation Process: A Retreat From Insistence on Excel- lence." Library Journal105:2377-82 (1980). White, Herbert S. "Library Education Programs: Independence and Mergers." Library Journal 112:84-85 Oune 1, 1987). Witucke, Virginia. "Library School Policies Toward Preprofessional Work Experience." Journal of Edu- cation for Librarianship 16(3):162-72 (1976). By the 1930's, the great push toward comprehensive bibliographical control of periodical and monographic literature, with which the century had commenced, was definitely over, and at- tention was directed to the basis rather than to the actuality of control. -Verner Oapp, April1950