Untitled-12 446 College & Research Libraries September 1997 446 Who Speaks for Academic Librarians? Status and Satisfaction Comparisons between Unaffiliated and Unionized Librarians on Scholarship and Governance Issues Lothar Spang and William P. Kane Lothar Spang is a Reference Librarian in the Shiffman Medical Library at Wayne State University; e-mail: lspang@cms.cc.wayne.edu. William P. Kane is Associate Dean for Public Services in McNichols Library at the University of Detroit-Mercy; e-mail: kanewp@udmercy.edu. status, with its emphasis on research, publication, and participatory manage- ment, has proved to be a less than uni- formly applied model for librarians. By 1986, two researchers, Fred E. Hill and Robert Hauptman, had concluded that �If it is in the best interests of the organization for librarians to have fac- ulty status then they will�provided . . . they earn it.�2 By 1992, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) had stated: �Faculty status for librarians is likely to be influenced more by attitudes and per- he representation of librarian interests promises to be a cru- cial concern in academic librarianship in the twenty-first century. Status as faculty, centered on a �three-tiered structure requiring perfor- mance in teaching (professional practice), scholarship, and service,�1 was formally adopted by the ALA in 1971 as the de- finitive answer to the century-long de- bate over what constitutes the profes- sional identity of academic librarians. But in the ensuing twenty-five years, faculty Scholarship and governance have emerged as the two most problem- atic aspects of faculty status for academic librarians. A comparative survey of 201 librarians, 126 unaffiliated and 75 unionized, revealed wide disparities, according to librarian status/title designations, in the opportunities afforded librarians to meet these requirements. The 34- item questionnaire focused on librarians’ status/title characteristics, rep- resentation means, and institutional support for professional develop- ment, sabbaticals/leaves, travel, tuition, and participatory management. Salary information, as a measure of librarian equality to teaching fac- ulty, also was solicited. The survey results confirm that the absence of uniform representation on these status issues has profound implica- tions for the future of the faculty status model as a standard for aca- demic librarianship. Who Speaks for Academic Librarians? 447 spectives of local . . . administrators and faculty than by demands of librarians or any standards set by national library or- ganizations.�3 Current estimates are that 67 percent of higher education institutions grant such status to their librarians.4 Most com- pliance is found in larger public institu- tions.5 In general, faculty status as a stan- dard is reported to be �holding its own and making small gains.�6 Prospects for the future of academic librarians as equals to teaching faculty, however, ap- pear uncertain. The reasons are the un- resolved practical issues relating to librar- ians� ability to meet professional status standards and the continuing absence of uniform representation of librarian inter- ests on these concerns. Scholarship and Governance: Ongoing Problems for Academic Librarians During the past ten years, as demon- strated by increasing coverage in the pro- fessional literature, scholarship and gov- ernance have emerged as the two most troublesome aspects of faculty status for librarians. Both have had a profound impact on work schedules, workloads, and responsibilities. Both have altered the criteria for promotions, employment se- curity, and compensation. Each has gen- erated mixed opinions from faculty and administrators on the role of librarians as professionals, and each has inspired increasing calls within the profession for librarians to redefine faculty standards to allow librarians to wear �their own clothes.�7 In 1987, Robert Boice, Jordan M. Scepanski, and Wayne Wilson empha- sized librarians� ongoing �lack of com- mitment to research and publication.�8 Since then, Michael Koenig, Ronald Morrison, and Linda Roberts; Richard M. Dougherty; Shelley Arlen and Nedria A. Santizo; and Kee DeBoer and Wendy Culotta,9 among others, have each con- cluded that the release time necessary to fulfill this requirement has proved to be nearly insurmountable in that librarian- ship, unlike teaching, is based on service rather than scholarship. For William K. Black and Joan M. Leysen, �The struc- ture of librarians� work environment and the way institutions and librarians per- ceive scholarship are the major ob- stacles.�10 The expense is the problem, ac- cording to Richard W. Meyer, who cal- culates that librarian scholarship require- ments impose a 9 percent cost in teach- ing faculty research production, in terms of librarian time lost to service.11 Other researchers cite a weak research base, librarianship itself, as the prime reason for the lack of scholarship.12 Still others fault library schools that do not teach research methods.13 Governance has presented as equally formidable a dilemma as scholarship. A premier obstacle has been administrator attitudes in a profession in which, unlike teaching, management traditionally has been hierarchical rather than collegial. Lynne E. Gamble notes the perception that managers often see participatory management as �anti-authoritarian.�14 Morris A. Hounion, Belle Zeller, Lothar Spang, and Gloriana St. Clair and Irene B. Hoadley15 each document administra- tor efforts to either eliminate or limit fac- ulty status at their respective institutions. By 1995, an ARL appraisal of governance practices indicated that, although slightly more managers than in a previous sur- vey relied on committee advice on vari- ous issues, 7 percent fewer library facul- ties met to discuss policies and proce- dures in advisory capacities.16 Current estimates are that 60 percent of library directors think faculty status is of no ben- efit to their staffs.17 Other researchers cite a weak research base, librarianship itself, as the prime reason for the lack of scholarship.15 448 College & Research Libraries September 1997 The Unresolved Practical Aspects of Faculty Status After twenty-five years of striving to meld librarianship requirements with teaching faculty standards, academic li- brarians are still regarded by faculty, and, in turn, by administrators, as service pro- viders rather than scholarly colleagues. Such attitudes are reflected in the benefit levels afforded to librarians. Faculty li- brarians earn significantly less than aca- demic faculty of the same rank.18 Even library directors ultimately do not ben- efit from faculty status in that their ex- perience as supervisory professionals does not translate into promotions to the upper echelons of institution administra- tion.19 As for time allotments for schol- arship and governance responsibilities: Workweeks are still forty hours concen- trated on library service. Professional leaves often are shorter than those of fac- ulty. And work schedules for most librar- ians remain based on an eleven-month year in contrast to the nine-month sched- ules of teaching faculty. For librarians, therefore, the practical incentives for meeting faculty status requirements re- main major issues. The Quest for Faculty Status: The Current Dilemma Despite the ongoing difficulties, in at least one study 64 percent of librarians are re- ported to want faculty status.20 The posi- tive relationship between such status and librarian job satisfaction has been empha- sized in recent studies by Koenig, Mor- rison, and Roberts, by Bonnie Horenstein, and by Rodney M. Hershberger.21 Con- versely, the benefits of such status for in- stitutions, primarily in a better qualified staff, also have been noted by Marjorie A. Benedict, by Elizabeth Park and Robert Riggs, and by Faculty Status: 2001, a 1992 Association of College and Research Li- braries (ACRL) collegium charged with es- tablishing future goals for the profession.22 On librarians� quest for parity with faculty, the ARL has advised that: �Con- ditions on any one campus may warrant an effort . . . by librarians to seek the same kind of protection afforded faculty in order to assure the presence of skilled staff necessary to provide effective ser- vice� (the authors� emphasis).23 But how this effort by librarians is to be made in their respective institutions remains an open question. It also is a key consider- ation in defining the future identity of academic librarianship. Librarian Interest Representation Past and Present Academic librarians traditionally have had their interests represented through one or more means from among four choices: acting singly in negotiating their own interests with administrators; rely- ing on the judgment and goodwill of su- pervisors to promote librarian interests; participating in collaborative ventures with their fellow librarians to enhance professional interests; and/or, if available, joining a union, most often a large teacher collective, for formal negotiations. ALA, an advisory body representing libraries and library interests, of which librarians are only one element, has a long-standing policy of neutrality on collective action.24 Thus, of these four means, unionization, as the most extreme, has been the most problematic for librarians, pitting profes- sional ideals against practical realities. Interest in unionization also has been cyclic, reflective of prevailing economic and social conditions. The first academic librarian collective bargaining contracts were signed in 1946, at Howard Univer- sity and at Yale University, at the begin- ning of the nation�s postwar economic resurgence.25 Because of McCarthyism strictures in U. S. colleges and universi- ties during the 1950s and early 1960s, it was not until 1965, when University of California-Berkeley librarians during the social unrest of the Vietnam era formed a librarians� union, that collective action by librarians promised to become a force on American campuses.26 Who Speaks for Academic Librarians? 449 By 1976, the National Education As- sociation (NEA) represented faculty, among them librarians, at 181 higher education institutions; the American Fed- eration of Teachers (AFT), at 138; and the American Association of University Pro- fessors (AAUP), at forty-three.27 By 1981, because academic librarians were repre- sented by various unions, often with other types of employees, no reliable sta- tistics were available on unionized aca- demic librarians nationwide.28 Currently, because of recent amalgamations in vari- ous union locals, data on AFT and NEA representation are not available; the AAUP, however, is bargaining agent for at least ninety institutions.29 But, judging by the altered focus on union issues in the library literature of the past fifteen years, librarians� interest in union activism has waned consider- ably. In the 1980s, many discussions centered on the bargaining of single is- sues. So far in the 1990s, concentration has been more on the theoretical as- pects of unionism. This focus change parallels an increase in the economic stringencies experienced by higher education institutions and commensu- rate worries by librarians over their em- ployability amid staff downsizings in the same period. In 1997, as in 1981, how- ever, definitive numbers on unionized and unaffiliated librarians have remained unavailable. Assessing Academic Librarians’ Future Status Prospects: The Questions Academic librarianship, therefore, cur- rently includes a wide range of librar- ians: from those who have minimal professional status and little or no rep- resentative voice, to those who have full faculty status and national union representation. This representation di- versity has meant a wide disparity in the strength of librarian interest advo- cacy and, in turn, institution adherence to the faculty status model. It also has imposed a large responsibility on librar- ians to represent effectively their own professional interests within their respec- tive institutions. Unaffiliated or unionized, academic librarians who seek to meet the standards set for their profession have a common interest in scholarship and governance issues and accompanying concerns: re- lease time, promotion and job security basis, professional development oppor- tunities, management apportionment, and the tangible measure of their ef- forts�remuneration. How these issues are resolved in any given institution de- fines whether its librarians have, or can expect to have, faculty status according to ACRL standards. Seventy-five percent of the research on such status topics has been compiled through surveys of library directors.30 No investigations have focused on librarians� own assessments of their current abili- ties to meet scholarship and governance requirements in light of their interest rep- resentation. Yet a sampling of such views can provide a useful perspective on five questions in the status debate: (1) How do academic librarians perceive their present status? (2) What importance do librarians place on these issues? (3) How important is the role of administrators in the recognition of faculty status for librar- ians? (4) Do librarians think that, realis- tically, given their current working con- ditions, they have the opportunity to maintain, or achieve, faculty status? (5) Is collective action a constructive method of maintaining or achieving such status? The Survey Questionnaire These five questions served as a frame- No investigations have focused on librarians� own assessments of their current abilities to meet scholarship and governance requirements in light of their interest representation. 450 College & Research Libraries September 1997 work for a thirty-four-item questionnaire devised to garner librarians� perceptions of, and satisfaction with, their present scholarship and governance opportuni- ties as defined by their professional status characteristics and their interest represen- tation. Queries about status description were adapted from the 1990 ACRL stan- dards which require, for librarians, certain rights and responsibilities in professional duties, governance, compensation, tenure, promotions, leaves, research and devel- opment funds, and academic freedom that are comparable to faculty.31 Accordingly, survey questions focused on status and title designations; salary, employment security, and promotion basis; and participatory management, leaves, and professional development descriptions. Status satisfaction, defined as the assessment of the practical appli- cation of status standards, was gleaned through questions on aspects of profes- sional development support, gover- nance, pay scale comparison to teaching faculty, and salary increases of the past two years. Representation questions fo- cused on how librarian interests on sta- tus issues were conveyed to administra- tors. Included were queries on the pres- ence of, and descriptions of, any infor- mal or ad hoc committees or organiza- tions; nonunion collective formal orga- nizations, such as a Librarians Assembly; and any union affiliation. For identifica- tion, respondents were asked only to list their institution�s name. Confidentiality was assured. (Copies of the questionnaire are available from the first author.) The Contact Means Because no definitive lists of unionized and unaffiliated institutions are available, librarians were contacted through two sources: listserv postings and lists of un- affiliated and unionized institutions com- piled by the Wayne State University (WSU) local of the AAUP. Questionnaires were posted to four listserv sources: LIBPER, a library personnel issues list; COLLBARG, aimed at reference librar- ians involved with, or interested in, aca- demic librarian collective bargaining is- sues; MEDLIB, focused on issues of interest to university medical librarians; and LAWLIB, geared to university law library professionals. At the same time, questionnaires, directed to �Reference Li- brarian,� also were sent randomly by U. S. mail to ninety libraries from the WSU/ AAUP-supplied lists: Seventy of these libraries were cited as unionized and twenty as unaffiliated. �Reference Librar- ian� was chosen as the designee to encour- age anonymous responses from �line� li- brarians rather than administrators. The Respondents Completed surveys were returned by 201 librarians: 126 unaffiliated and 75 union- ized. Included were respondents from 67 private institutions (15 unionized, 52 unaffiliated) and 134 public institutions (60 unionized, 74 unaffiliated). The ma- jority of responses came from librarians in midsize four-year colleges and univer- sities. The unions represented included the AAUP, thirty-six respondents; AFT, eighteen; NEA, five; AFL-CIO, four; and various other union amalgamations and regional collectives, twelve. A cross section of four status/title cat- egories was encompassed, three almost evenly represented: Faculty status with faculty title (faculty/faculty) had fifty- seven respondents; faculty status with librarian title (faculty/librarian), sixty; and respondents in institutions where li- brarians were classified as professional/ administrative staff (professional/ad- ministrative), fifty-seven. The fourth sta- tus category, Other, which included those librarians in institutions where librarians were termed academic staff or had mul- titrack options, had twenty-seven respon- dents (see table 1). Combined, these four categories, and the attendant representa- tion indicated for each, provided a basis for gauging the current scholarship and governance applications of the faculty Who Speaks for Academic Librarians? 451 Table 1 Description of Respondents Total Number of Librarians 201 Types of Institutions/Libraries 4-year colleges/universities 145 2-year colleges 16 University medical libraries 19 University law libraries 21 Enrollment Size of Institutions Over 20,000 27 10,000 – 20,000 52 1,000 – 9,999 109 Under 1,000 13 Financial Support of Institutions Public 134 Private 67 Librarian Status/Titles Faculty status with faculty title 57 Faculty status with librarian title 60 Professional/Administrative staff 57 Other, including academic staff and librarians with multi-track options 27 Librarian Representation Unaffiliated (74 public institutions, 52 private) 126 Union (60 public institutions, 15 private) 75 Note: Replies were received from librarians in 183 institutions: 15 institutions had 2 replies; 2 had 3; and 1 had 4. 10,000 enrollment range. Forty-two of the fifty-seven professional/adminis- trative (P/A) librarians came from un- affiliated institutions, twenty-one pub- lic, twenty-one private; the majority of these institutions had enrollments of under 10,000. The twenty-seven librar- ians in the Other category were mainly from unaffiliated public institutions of mid and larger size. But, of the sixty fac- ulty/librarian respondents, twenty- eight were from unaffiliated institutions of varying size that were almost evenly divided between private (fifteen) and public (thirteen); the thirty-two union- ized faculty/librarian respondents were mainly from public institutions that were predominately in the mid- and large-size ranges. Generally, the public institutions of 10,000 or more enrollment were those that afforded faculty/faculty, faculty/librarian, or Other status/title designations; smaller institutions, of under 10,000 enrollment, the profes- sional/administrative designation. Of the four categories, faculty/librarian re- spondents were the most apt to be unionized. Status Characteristics: Tenure, Promotions, and Related Peer Review All twenty unionized faculty/faculty li- brarians were eligible for tenure which was equal to that of teaching faculty (i.e., not a continuing service contract or other tenure variation), as were thirty-one of the thirty-seven unaffiliated faculty/fac- ulty librarians. For faculty/faculty re- spondents, the findings on promotion criteria equal to teaching faculty proved to be nearly identical to those findings on tenure: Nineteen of the twenty union- ized and thirty-three of the thirty-seven unaffiliated librarians had comparable promotion standards. Similarly, nineteen unionized and thirty-four unaffiliated faculty/faculty respondents participated in tenure and promotion decisions (see table 3). status standards and, in turn, the future prospects for the faculty status model. Librarian Status/Title Designations In the faculty/librarian category, union- ized respondents outnumbered the un- affiliated librarians by only four. But in the faculty/faculty, professional/adminis- trative, and Other categories (by seventeen, twenty-seven, and eleven, respectively), un- affiliated librarians outnumbered the union- ized respondents. Unique to each of the four categories, however, was the descriptions of their respective institutions (see table 2). Of the fifty-seven faculty/faculty li- brarians, forty-one came from public in- stitutions; twenty-five of these institu- tions were unaffiliated, most in the over 452 College & Research Libraries September 1997 and tenure decisions. Of the twenty-eight unaffiliated faculty/ librarian respon- dents, however, only eight had the tenure option, fourteen had comparable promo- tion criteria, and six- teen had peer review responsibilities. Li- brarians in the Other category showed a similar pattern to fac- ulty/librarian re- spondents: They were likely to have comparable tenure, promotion, and re- lated peer review in- put only if union- ized. Professional/ administrative librar- ians, whether union- ized or not, had little access to such privi- leges: Few had ten- ure or comparable promotion criteria; only 23 percent (nine unaffiliated, four unionized) partici- pated in promotion decisions. For faculty/li- brarian and Other r e s p o n d e n t s , u n i o n i z a t i o n , therefore, correlated significantly with opportunities to meet faculty status stan- dards on tenure, promotion, and related peer review issues at nearly the same lev- els as unaffiliated and unionized faculty/ faculty librarians. But, for professional/ administrative librarians, unionization had little impact on these issues. Status Characteristics: Salaries, Budgets, and Related Governance For unaffiliated and unionized librarians But, in contrast to faculty/faculty li- brarians who, whether unionized or not, tended to have tenure, promotion, and re- lated peer review privileges that were like those of teaching faculty, the faculty/librar- ian respondents were more apt to have such privileges only if unionized: Of the thirty- two unionized faculty/librarian respon- dents, twenty-two had tenure, nineteen had tenure equal to faculty, twenty-four had promotion criteria equal to faculty, and twenty-eight participated in promotion T A B L E 2 Status/T itle C ategories of L ibrarians by R epresentation and Type/Size of Institution (N = 201) F ac/F ac (n = 57) F ac/L ib (n = 60) P /A (n = 57) O ther (n = 27) U naf. U nion U naf. U nion U naf. U nion U naf. U nion Type/S ize of Institution (n = 37) (n = 20) (n = 28) (n = 32) (n = 42) (n = 15) (n = 19) (n = 8) P rivate U nder 1,000 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1,000 – 9,999 11 3 11 3 18 2 4 0 10,000 – 20,000 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 O ver 20,000 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 12 4 15 5 21 5 4 1 P ublic U nder 1,000 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1,000 – 9,999 5 10 7 11 11 5 4 4 10,000 – 20,000 13 4 1 11 4 4 7 2 O ver 20,000 6 2 3 5 4 1 4 1 Total 25 16 13 27 21 10 15 7 N ote: F ac/F ac = F aculty status w ith faculty title (A ssistant P rofessor, etc.). F ac/L ib = F aculty status w ith librarian title (L ibrarian I, etc.). P /A = P rofessional/A dm inistrative staff. O ther = A cadem ic staff or librarians in institutions having m ulti- track system s for librarians. U naf = U naffiliated w ith a union. U nion = U nionized. Who Speaks for Academic Librarians? 453 either. By contrast, 53 percent (seventeen of thirty-two) of the unionized faculty/ librarian respondents participated in such reviews. Unionized librarians in the Other category were nearly comparable to unionized faculty/librarian respon- dents: Of the eight unionized Other li- brarians, five participated in salary deci- sions. But professional/administrative librarians, unionized or not, had almost no say in such decisions. Participation in unit budget prepara- tion was highest for unionized librarians in the faculty/faculty, faculty/librarian, alike, in all four categories, a merit and across-the-board combination was the most common salary basis (see table 4). The most startling finding, however, was that, unionized or not, faculty/faculty librarians, in higher numbers as com- pared to faculty/librarian respondents, had little role in the review process: Fifty percent (nineteen of thirty-seven) of the unaffiliated faculty/faculty librarians reported no role in salary review. The unionized faculty/faculty librarians showed a similar pattern: Forty-five per- cent (nine of twenty) had no such voice, T A B L E 3 Te nu re , P ro m ot io ns , a nd R el at ed G ov er na nc e: St at us b y R ep re se nt at io n C om pa ri so ns ( N = 2 01 ) F ac /F ac ( n = 5 7) F ac /L ib ( n = 6 0) P /A ( n = 5 7) O th er ( n = 2 7) U na f. U ni on U na f. U ni on U na f. U ni on U na f. U ni on D o yo u ha ve . . . (n = 3 7) (n = 2 0) (n = 2 8) (n = 3 2) (n = 4 2) (n = 1 5) (n = 1 9) (n = 8 ) Te nu re e li gi bi li ty ?* Y es 31 20 8 22 3 2 8 6 N o 4 0 16 7 35 11 4 2 O th er 2 0 4 2 4 2 7 0 D on ’t k no w 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Te nu re e qu al t o fa cu lt y? ** Y es 31 20 10 19 0 2 7 4 N o 6 0 17 10 39 12 12 4 O th er 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 D on ’t k no w 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 P ro m ot io n cr it er ia e qu al t o fa cu lt y? Y es 33 19 14 24 6 3 8 6 N o 2 0 9 7 27 8 9 2 O th er 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 D on ’t k no w 2 1 5 1 9 2 2 0 P ro m ot io n an d te nu re d ec is io n pa rt ic ip at io n? Y es 34 19 16 28 9 4 13 6 N o 3 1 11 3 32 10 6 2 O th er 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 D on ’t k no w 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 N o re sp on se 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N ot e: S ee T ab le 2 fo ot no te fo r a bb re vi at io ns k ey . *E ig ht in st it ut io ns w er e re po rt ed b y re sp on de nt s to h av e re ce nt ly e nd ed th e te nu re p ro vi si on fo r n ew h ir es : 6 un af fi li at ed an d 2 un io ni ze d. ** Te nu re e qu al to fa cu lt y = T ru e te nu re , n ot a c on ti nu in g se rv ic e co nt ra ct o r o th er v ar ia ti on o f t en ur e. T ab ul at io ns in th is c at eg or y re fl ec t t he fa ct or e xp ai ne d in fo ot no te * (a bo ve ): N ew h ir es in 8 in st it ut io ns w er e no lo ng er o ff er ed th e te nu re tr ac k, b ut a lr ea dy te nu re d li br ar ia ns re ta in ed te nu re c om pa ra bl e to fa cu lt y. 454 College & Research Libraries September 1997 and Other categories: The faculty/librar- ian respondents, with 69 percent (twenty- two of thirty-two) reporting participa- tion, had the most involvement. Fifty percent (ten of twenty) of the faculty/ faculty librarians, and 50 percent (four of eight) of the Other respondents also were involved. Unaffiliated profes- sional/administrative librarians, how- ever, had more budget responsibilities than did their unionized counterparts: Forty-five percent of the unaffiliated pro- fessional/administrative librarians had such involvement, as contrasted to only 13 percent of the unionized professional/ administrative respondents. Thus unionization, especially for fac- ulty/librarian and Other librarians, cor- related strongly with participation in sal- ary and budget decisions. By contrast, whether unionized or not, faculty/fac- ulty librarians, the group that would have been expected to have the most par- ticipation, as patterned after teaching fac- ulty management practices, had com- paratively less involvement. Profes- sional/administrative librarians, union- ized or unaffiliated, had little role in peer T A B L E 4 E conom ic Issues and R elated G overnance: Status by R epresentation C om parisons (N = 201) F ac/F ac (n = 57) F ac/L ib (n = 60) P /A (n = 57) O ther (n = 27) U naf. U nion U naf. U nion U naf. U nion U naf. U nion D o you have . . . (n = 37) (n = 20) (n = 28) (n = 32) (n = 42) (n = 15) (n = 19) (n = 8) (as) salary basis M erit? 8 3 8 2 3 0 3 0 A cB ? 7 9 4 13 14 4 3 6 B oth? 15 7 15 10 22 9 8 2 O ther? 7 1 1 7 3 2 5 0 P eer salary decision participation? Y es 16 11 7 17 3 1 6 5 N o 19 9 18 11 36 14 12 3 D on’t know 2 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 N o response 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 U nit budget decision participation? Y es 19 10 11 22 19 2 6 4 N o 15 9 14 10 20 13 13 4 D on’t know 3 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 N ote: S ee Table 2 footnote for com plete abbreviations key. A cB = A cross the board. Who Speaks for Academic Librarians? 455 salary reviews. But, surprisingly, if un- affiliated, professional/administrative respondents reported considerable par- ticipation in the budget process. Status Characteristics: Governance Forums Of the 201 respondents, thirty-one unaf- filiated librarians had no collective rep- resentation means on campus: Twenty- four of these thirty-one respondents were in the professional/administrative cat- egory; the remaining seven included four librarians with faculty/librarian status and three in the Other category. In no instance did a respondent have faculty status with a faculty title without at least one form of collegial representation on campus (see table 5). Whether librarians were unionized or unaffiliated, across all four categories, the Academic Senate was the most common forum for librarian interest representa- tion. One hundred and fifty-one respon- dents, eighty-nine unaffiliated and sixty- two unionized, reported that librarians at their institutions were eligible for elected Senate representation. All fifty- seven faculty/faculty librarians had such voice, as did fifty-four of the sixty faculty/librarian respondents and twenty of the twenty-seven Other cat- egory librarians. But sixty-five percent (thirty-seven) of the fifty-seven profes- sional/ administrative librarians re- ported no such eligibility. Proportion- ately, unionized faculty/librarian, profes- sional/administrative, and Other respon- dents had slightly more access to an elected Senate than did their unaffiliated counterparts. A Librarians Assembly presence was reported by only forty-two respondents: twenty-five unaffiliated and seventeen unionized. Seventy-eight percent indi- cated that the Assembly was a represen- tation means available to them in addi- tion to the Senate. Unionized Other and professional/ administrative librarians reported the most Assembly access, while unionized faculty/librarian and unaffili- ated faculty/faculty respondents re- ported proportionately less. An ad hoc committee was a minor presence as a means of librarian interest representation. Only twenty-three librar- ians, thirteen unaffiliated and ten union- ized, divided almost equally among the four categories of respondents, cited such access. T A B L E 5 C ol le ct iv e R ep re se nt at io n O pt io ns f or F ou r St at us /T it le C at eg or ie s of A ca de m ic L ib ra ri an s (N = 2 01 ) U na ff il ia te d L ib ra ri an s* U ni on iz ed L ib ra ri an s (N = 1 26 R es po nd en ts ) (N = 7 5 R es po nd en ts ) F ac /F ac F ac /L ib P /A O th er F ac /F ac F ac /L ib P /A O th er O pt io ns ** (n = 3 7) (n = 2 8) (n = 4 2) (n = 1 9) (n = 2 0) (n = 3 2) (n = 1 5) (n = 8 ) A ca de m ic S en at e 37 24 14 14 20 30 6 6 L ib ra ri an s A ss em bl y 8 6 6 5 1 8 5 3 A d ho c C om m it te e 1 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 N ot e: S ee T ab le 2 fo ot no te fo r a bb re vi at io ns k ey . *T hi rt y- on e un af fi li at ed li br ar ia ns h ad n o co ll ec ti ve re pr es en ta ti on : F ac /L ib = 4 ; P /A = 2 4; O th er = 3 . ** D on ’t k no w /n o re sp on se a ns w er s w er e, re sp ec ti ve ly : A ca de m ic S en at e, 7 /2 ; L ib ra ri an s A ss em bl y, 6 /2 ; A d ho c C om m it te e, 1 3/ 8. 456 C o lleg e & R esearch L ib raries S ep tem b er 1997 TABLE 6 Satisfaction Rankings on Professional Opportunity, Participatory Management, and Economic Concerns, Most (1) to Least (7): Status by Representation Comparisons (N = 201) Fac/Fac (n = 57) Fac/Lib (n = 60) P/A (n = 57) Other (n = 27) Unaf. Union Unaf. Union Unaf. Union Unaf. Union Are you satisfied with your . . . (n=37) (n=20) (n=28) (n=32) (n=42) (n=15) (n=19) (n=8) Totals 1. Tuition reimbursement? Yes 26 11 17 19 25 12 10 4 124 No 8 7 8 10 10 3 7 4 57 Don’t know 3 2 3 3 7 0 2 0 20 2. Professional development opportunities? Yes 24 16 20 19 21 7 10 4 121 No 10 3 7 13 17 7 9 4 70 Don’t know 3 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 9 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3. Participatory management opportunities? Yes 28 16 16 22 15 3 8 2 110 No 4 3 7 8 22 11 9 4 68 Don’t know 5 1 4 2 5 1 2 2 22 No response 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4. Sabbatical and professional leave opportunities? Yes 24 17 18 20 7 4 9 4 103 No 9 2 9 10 31 9 10 4 84 Don’t know 4 1 1 1 4 2 0 0 13 No response 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Who Speaks for Academic Librarians? 457 5. T ra ve l su pp or t? Y es 21 12 19 16 20 2 9 1 10 0 N o 15 7 9 16 22 6 10 6 91 D on ’t k no w 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 9 N o re sp on se 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6. S al ar y in cr ea se s of t he p as t tw o ye ar s? Y es 21 15 13 17 11 2 5 3 87 N o 11 4 12 12 27 11 14 5 96 D on ’t k no w 5 1 2 3 4 2 0 0 17 N o re sp on se 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7. P ay s ca le a s co m pa re d to t ea ch in g fa cu lt y? Y es 20 14 6 19 7 4 6 3 79 N o 14 6 18 10 31 10 13 4 10 6 D on ’t k no w 3 0 4 3 4 1 0 1 16 N ot e: S ee T ab le 2 fo ot no te fo r A bb re vi at io ns k ey . Whether unionized or not, 170 respon- dents in this survey had at least one means of collegial representation. Fac- ulty/faculty librarians, unaffiliated or unionized, had the most Senate access. But union-represented librarians in the faculty/librarian and Other categories had access to the Senate almost compa- rable to faculty/faculty librarians. Of the four categories, however, faculty/librar- ian respondents had the most total means of representation. Unionization, therefore, assured li- brarians the most collegial representation through a combination of union and Sen- ate activity. But the majority of unaffili- ated librarians also had representation available, most often the Senate. As indi- cated by a review of academic librarians� assessments of their respective profes- sional situations, however, collective rep- resentation, regardless of status/title cat- egory, did not uniformly assure condi- tions conducive for meeting current scholarships and governance standards. Satisfaction Assessments: Professional Opportunities, Governance, and Economic Issues Status satisfaction questions centered on librarians� views of their overall oppor- tunities to meet scholarship and gover- nance obligations as required by ACRL standards, and the measure of such par- ity with teaching faculty�salaries. In- cluded in scholarship support were tuition reimbursement, professional development opportunities, sabbaticals/professional leaves, and travel support. Overall satis- faction with governance issues was ad- dressed by a question on participatory management opportunities (see table 6). Sixty-two percent (124) of the 201 re- spondents, unionized or not, reported satisfaction with their tuition reimburse- ment opportunities. Unaffiliated librar- ians in the faculty/faculty, faculty/librar- ian, and Other categories were more sat- isfied than their unionized counterparts. Of the faculty/faculty librarians, 72 per- 458 College & Research Libraries September 1997 unaffiliated and 60 percent (twelve) of the unionized faculty/faculty librarians were satisfied. But, in contrast, 67 percent (nine- teen) of the unaffiliated and 50 percent (six- teen) of the unionized faculty/librarian re- spondents approved of their support. Professional/administrative and Other librarians, unaffiliated or unionized, each reported a less than 50 percent satisfac- tion rate on this issue. Thus unionization, especially for faculty/faculty librarians, correlated significantly with satisfactory travel support. Participatory management opportuni- ties received mixed reviews. Faculty/fac- ulty librarians reported the most satisfac- tion. Seventy-seven percent (forty-four) of these librarians reported satisfactory governance responsibilities. Included were 78 percent (twenty) of the unaffili- ated, and 80 percent (sixteen) of the unionized librarians; thus satisfaction levels were nearly identical for unaffili- ated and unionized faculty/faculty re- spondents. Sixty-three percent (thirty- eight) of all the faculty/librarian respon- dents also reported satisfactory partici- pation: 69 percent (twenty-two) union- ized, and 57 percent (sixteen) unaffiliated. But only 36 percent (ten) of the Other category librarians, most of them unaf- filiated, and 31 percent (eighteen) of the professional/administrative respon- dents, most of them unaffiliated, reported such satisfaction. Therefore, for faculty/ librarian respondents, as compared to the other three categories, unionization as- sured the most satisfactory overall gov- ernance participation. Salary increase satisfaction was high- est for unionized faculty/faculty librar- ians: Seventy-five percent (fifteen) re- ceived salary increases satisfactory to them within the past two years. But only 57 percent (twenty-one) of the unaffili- ated faculty/faculty respondents re- ported such satisfaction. Of the fac- ulty/librarian respondents, 46 percent (thirteen) of the unaffiliated and 53 percent (seventeen) of the unionized cent (twenty-six) of the unaffiliated, as compared to 55 percent (eleven) of the unionized, respondents were pleased with tuition benefits. By a slight margin, unaffiliated faculty/librarian respon- dents, at 61 percent (seventeen), were more satisfied than unionized faculty/ librarian respondents (59 percent, nine- teen). Similarly, unaffiliated librarians in the Other category, at 52 percent (ten), were slightly more pleased than their unionized counterparts (50 percent, four). But the opposite pattern was true for professional/administrative librar- ians: Eighty percent (twelve) of the unionized, as opposed to 59 percent (twenty-five) of the unaffiliated, profes- sional/administrative respondents ex- pressed approval. Slightly more than 60 percent (121) of the 201 librarians reported satisfaction with professional development opportuni- ties. Eighty percent (sixteen) of the union- ized faculty/faculty librarians reported sat- isfaction with such support. But unaffiliated faculty/librarian, professional/ administra- tive, and Other respondents reported slightly more opportunities than did their unionized counterparts. As for sabbatical and professional leave support, of the four categories unionized faculty/faculty librarians re- ported the most satisfaction: Eighty-five percent (seventeen) of the unionized fac- ulty/faculty respondents, as compared to 65 percent (twenty-four) of the unaf- filiated faculty/ faculty librarians, were pleased. A reverse pattern was true for faculty/librarian respondents, of whom 64 percent (eighteen) of the unaffiliated and 62 percent (twenty) of the unionized librarians were satisfied. Unionized or not, 48 percent (thirteen) of the Other li- brarians who had access to such support were pleased. Only 19 percent (eleven) of the professional/administrative group expressed approval. Travel support was satisfactory for only 49 percent (100) of reporting librar- ians: Fifty-six percent (twenty-one) of the Who Speaks for Academic Librarians? 459 librarians were pleased with their sal- ary increases. Less than 30 percent of the respondents in both the Other and professional/administrative categories reported such satisfaction. For faculty/ faculty and faculty/librarian respon- dents, therefore, unionization played a significant role in the negotiation of sat- isfactory pay raises. Similarly, approval of their pay scale as compared to that of teaching faculty was highest for unionized faculty/fac- ulty and faculty/librarian respondents. Seventy percent (fourteen) of the union- ized faculty/faculty and 59 percent (nine- teen) of the unionized faculty/librarian respondents reported satisfaction on this issue. Only 54 percent (twenty) of the unrepresented faculty/faculty and 21 percent (six) of the unaffiliated faculty/ librarian respondents expressed such sat- isfaction. As for professional/adminis- trative and Other librarians, when these two groups were combined, whether unionized or not, only 23 percent (twenty) were pleased with the compari- son at their institutions. Despite variations among the status/ title categories, the total positive (satis- fied) responses to the questions docu- mented in table 6 were 724: 436 for the 126 unaffiliated librarians (average posi- tive response/librarian = 3.4); 288 for the seventy-five unionized respondents (3.8). Proportionately, therefore, by only .4 did unionized librarians outscore unaffiliated librarians on satisfaction assessments. The negative (dissatisfied) responses in table 6 totaled 572: 373 for the unaffili- ated (2.96 each); 199 for the unionized respondents (2.6). Thus, proportionately, unaffiliated respondents outscored unionized respondents by only .36 on negative assessments. Scholarship and Governance: Where Academic Librarians Are Now The foregoing survey of librarians was random. Yet respondents divided into four diverse groups, three of them almost evenly: faculty/faculty (fifty-seven), fac- ulty/librarian (sixty), professional/ad- ministrative (fifty-seven) librarians; and a fourth, Other (twenty-seven). Unaffili- ated or unionized, none of these four groups uniformly reported adequate scholarship and governance support ac- cording to current standards. Unaffiliated faculty/faculty librarians, compared to their unionized faculty/fac- ulty counterparts, had better tuition re- imbursement opportunities. But on ten- ure, promotions, related peer review, Sen- ate eligibility, and overall participatory management responsibilities, unaffili- ated and unionized faculty/faculty li- brarians were nearly equal. Only on pro- fessional development, sabbaticals/ leaves, travel, salary, and pay scale op- portunities did unionized faculty/fac- ulty librarians score better than their un- affiliated faculty/faculty counterparts. Unionized or not, faculty/faculty librar- ians, as a group, reported proportion- ately less peer salary review or unit bud- get input than did the faculty/librarian respondents. More than librarians in any of the three other categories, faculty/librarian re- spondents benefited from unionization. Unaffiliated faculty/librarian respon- dents were consistently outscored by their unionized counterparts on tenure, promotions, and related peer review re- sponsibilities, salary peer review, unit budget input, Senate eligibility, partici- patory management, and salary and pay scale issues. Only on tuition reimburse- ment did unaffiliated faculty/librarian respondents do better than unionized faculty/librarian personnel. Professional development opportunities was the only area in which unaffiliated and unionized faculty/librarian respondents were nearly equal. Salary increase satisfaction was highest for unionized faculty/ faculty librarians. 460 College & Research Libraries September 1997 Unionized librarians in the Other cat- egory were second to unionized faculty/ librarian respondents in their assess- ments of their situations. In only two cat- egories, tuition and professional devel- opment support, did unaffiliated Other librarians do better than their unionized counterparts. On tenure, promotions, and related peer review, salary and bud- get input, and Senate eligibility, union- ized Other librarians consistently outscored their unaffiliated Other coun- terparts. Only on positive assessments of sabbaticals/leaves support were unaffili- ated and unionized Other librarians equal. But negative assessments of their travel, overall governance responsibili- ties, salary and pay scale opportunities were equal for unaffiliated and unionized Other librarians alike. Of the four groups of respondents, professional/administrative librarians, unionized or unaffiliated, had the least means of meeting professional standards. Unionized professional/administrative respondents had more Senate eligibility and tuition reimbursement opportunities than did their unaffiliated professional/ administrative counterparts. But on unit budget participation and professional development opportunities, the unaffili- ated professional/administrative librar- ians fared better than unionized profes- sional/administrative personnel. Union- ized or unaffiliated professional/admin- istrative respondents were equal, how- ever, on their negative assessments of their tenure, promotion, peer review op- portunities, sabbaticals/leaves, travel, governance, and salary and pay scale opportunities. The New Questions for Academic Librarianship Scholarship and governance are the two key elements of the faculty status model. If librarians do not have the necessary support to fulfill these requirements, they cannot be comparable to teaching faculty. As exemplified in the preceding survey, a large proportion of librarians, accord- ing to their own assessments, do not have the opportunities required to meet these criteria. Not even the unionized librar- ians in this sample had optimum sup- port. The question, then, is: Who effec- tively speaks for academic librarians on such issues? In 1916, John Dewey became Cardholder #1 in the national AFT,32 a collective dedicated to teacher interest advancement. Academic librarians have never had a comparable activist of his stature. The ALA, since its inception in 1876, has been a professional association dedicated to libraries. In 1980, during the height of union activity, ALA, rather than becoming an activist organization, elected to remain a professional association only.33 In essence, ALA ceded librarian interest representation to local administrators, and any larger collective action was left to as- sorted unions. One effort was made in 1982, led by the Hospital, Library, and Public Employees Union in Massachu- setts, to form a National Federation of Librarians to promote librarian inter- ests.34 This effort failed. Consequently, academic librarians have relied on rep- resentation of their professional interests as available within their own institutions, primarily through administrators, sec- ondarily through Senates. Larger collec- tive representation has been assumed by default, mostly by teacher unions, of which librarians in any given bargaining unit con- stitute only an estimated 4 to 10 percent of the total membership.35 But an intriguing finding in the present study was that, when queried on how many librarians in their institutions were active in union activities, forty-one Professional development opportu- nities was the only area in which unaffiliated and unionized faculty/ librarian respondents were nearly equal. Who Speaks for Academic Librarians? 461 of the seventy-five unionized librarians responded only �a few� and nine said �none.� Reasons for this general inactiv- ity were not solicited, but a surmise is that librarians are uninterested in collec- tive representation or are frustrated by the whole bargaining process. Or, more possibly, given the discrepancies between profession standards and the support to meet them, as reported in the present study by four categories of academic li- brarians, unaffiliated and unionized alike: Many academic librarians are sim- ply �confused about what their profes- sion and their institutions [expect] of them.�36 At least two studies37 have em- phasized that the standards for academic librarians have been in place for years, yet the ACRL, even though inviting re- ports of �allegations of violations of these standards,�38 does not enforce the pre- scribed sanctions against institutions that do not adhere to them. Academic librari- anship thus remains the only profession in memory that allows the application of its standards to be decided by institution administrators. Perhaps, then, the relevant questions for academic librarianship today are: How do academic librarians themselves (nonadministrators), unaffiliated or unionized, see their present situation? What are they, as a professional group, willing to do to improve it? How will li- brary and institution management view such efforts? And, in turn, will profes- sional organizations then be able to de- fine and enforce reasonably attainable standards for all academic librarians? Constructive resolution of these ques- tions can help to shape the identity of academic librarianship in the next cen- tury. Until then, who speaks for academic librarians? Administrators do. Notes 1. William K. Black and Joan M. Leysen, �Scholarship and the Academic Librarian,� College and Research Libraries 55 (May 1994): 229. 2. Fred E. Hill and Robert Hauptman, �A New Perspective on Faculty Status,� College and Research Libraries 47 (Mar. 1986): 159. 3. Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Services, �Academic Status for Librarians in ARL Libraries,� SPEC Flyer 182 (Mar. 1992): 2. 4. Charles B. Lowry, �The Status of Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: A Twenty-Year Perspective,� College and Research Libraries 54 (Mar. 1993): 163. 5. Janet Krompart and Clara L. DiFelice, �A Review of Faculty Status Surveys, 1971�1984,� Journal of Academic Librarianship 13 (Mar. 1987): 16. 6. Lowry, �The Status of Faculty Status for Academic Librarians,� 163. 7. Janet S. Hill, �Wearing Our Own Clothes: Librarians As Faculty,� Journal of Academic Librarianship 20 (May 1994): 71. 8. Robert Boice, Jordan M. Scepanski, and Wayne Wilson, �Librarians and Faculty Members: Coping with Pressures to Publish,� College and Research Libraries 48 (Nov. 1987): 494�503. 9. Michael Koenig, Ronald Morrison, and Linda Roberts, �Faculty Status for Library Profes- sionals: Its Effect on Job Turnover and Job Satisfaction among University Research Library Direc- tors,� College and Research Libraries 57 (May 1996): 299; Richard M. Dougherty, �Faculty Status: Playing on a Tilted Field,� Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (May 1993): 67; Shelley Arlen and Nedria A. Santizo, �Administrative Support for Research: A Survey of Library faculty,� Library and Administrative Management 4 (fall 1990): 208�12; Kee DeBoer and Wendy Culotta, �The Aca- demic Librarian and Faculty Status in the 1980s: A Survey of the Literature,� College and Research Libraries 48 (May 1987): 218. 10. Black and Leyson, �Scholarship and the Academic Librarian,� 230. 11. Richard W. Meyer, �Earnings Gains through the Institutionalized Standard of Faculty Sta- tus,� Library Administration and Management 4 (fall 1990): 192. 12. Richard M. Dougherty, �Editorial: Library Education: The 1990s,� Journal of Academic Librarianship 17 (July 1991): 138, as quoted in Charles E. Slattery, �Faculty Status: Another 100 Years of Dialogue? Lessons from the Library School Closings,� Journal of Academic Librarianship 20 (Sept. 1994): 195. 13. David G. Anderson and Christina Landram, �Resolved: Library Schools Do Not Meet Their 462 College & Research Libraries September 1997 Goals and Objectives in Training Academic Librarians to Perform Research,� paper prepared for the 4th National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Baltimore, Apr. 9�12, 1986. 14. Anonymous librarian quoted in Lynne E. Gamble, �University Service, New Implications for Academic Librarians,� Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (Jan. 1989): 346. 15. Morris A. Hounion, �LACUNY and I: Experiences, Changes and Prospects,� Urban Aca- demic Librarian 7 (1990): 30�33; Belle Zeller, �The Status of CUNY Librarians,� Urban Academic Librarian 7 (1990): 34�39; Lothar Spang, �Collective Bargaining and Faculty Status: A Twenty-Year Case Study of Wayne State University Librarians,� College and Research Libraries 54 (May 1993): 241�53; Gloriana St. Clair and Irene B. Hoadley, �The Challenge to Faculty Status: A Call to Mili- tancy,� Wilson Library Bulletin 63 (Dec. 1988): 23�24+. 16. Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Services, �Faculty Organizations in ARL Libraries: Activities and Documents,� SPEC Flyer 206 (Jan. 1995): 1. 17. Thomas G. English, �Administrators� Views of Library Personnel Status,� College and Re- search Libraries 45 (May 1984): 189�95, quoted in Rachel Applegate, �Deconstructing Faculty Sta- tus: Research and Assumptions,� Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (July 1993): 161. 18. Marie E. Zeglen and Edward J. Schmidt, �Academic and Librarian Faculty: Birds of a Dif- ferent Feather in Compensation Policy,� paper presented at the 32nd Annual Forum of the Asso- ciation for Institutional Research, Atlanta, May 10�13, 1992. 19. Edward D. Garten, �Observations on Why So Few Chief Library Officers Move into Senior Academic Administration,� Library Administration and Management 2 (Mar. 1988): 95�98, as men- tioned in Koenig, Morrison, and Roberts, �Faculty Status for Library Professionals,� 295. 20. Judith A. Dimmick, �The Status of Faculty Status in Ohio Academic Libraries,� master�s research paper, Kent State University, 1990 (abstract). 21. Koenig, Morrison, and Roberts, �Faculty Status for Library Professionals,� 295�300; Bonnie Horenstein, �Job Satisfaction of Academic Librarians: An Examination of the Relationships be- tween Satisfaction, Faculty Status, and Participation,� College and Research Libraries 54 (May 1993): 255�69; Rodney M. Herschberger, �The Challenges of Leading and Managing Faculty Status Li- brarians,� Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (Jan. 1989): 361�65. 22. Marjorie A. Benedict, �Librarians� Satisfaction with Faculty Status,� College and Research Libraries 52 (Nov. 1991): 538�48; Elizabeth Park and Robert Riggs, �Tenure and Promotion: A Study of Practices by Institutional Type,� Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (May1993): 72�77; Irene B. Hoadley, �Faculty Status: 2001,� College and Research Libraries News 54 (June 1993): 338�39. 23. ARL, �Academic Status for Librarians in ARL Libraries,� 2. 24. Nancy E. Peace, �Personnel and Employment: Collective Bargaining,� in American Library Association Yearbook, 1981 (Chicago: ALA, 1982), 219. 25. Herbert Biblo, �Librarians and Trade Unionism: A Prologue,� Library Trends 25 (Oct. 1976): 427. 26. Marilyn Oberg, Mary Blackburn, and Joan Dible, �Unionization: Costs and Benefits to the Individual and the Library,� Library Trends 25 (Oct. 1976): 437. 27. �Unions Add 60 Campuses in 1976 Academic Year,� Chronicle of Higher Education 12 (May 1976): 5. 28. Peace, �Personnel and Employment,� 219. 29. Information supplied by J. Thompson, executive secretary, Wayne State University/Ameri- can Association of University Professors, Detroit, Nov. 1996. 30. Krompart and DiFelice, �A Review of Faculty Status Surveys, 1971�1984,� 16, mentioned in Horenstein, �Job Satisfaction of Academic Librarians,� 256. 31. �Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians,� College and Research Libraries News 5 (May 1992): 317�18. 32. Dennis Chamot, �The Effect of Collective Bargaining on the Employee�Management Rela- tionship,� Library Trends 25 (Oct. 1976): 494. 33. Peace, �Personnel and Employment,� 219. 34. John J. Keefe, �Collective Bargaining and the Librarian,� Bookmark 40 (summer 1982): 211. 35. John W. Weatherford, Collective Bargaining and the Academic Librarian (Metuchen, N.J.: Scare- crow, 1976), 112. 36. Krompart and DiFelice, �A Review of Faculty Status Surveys, 1971�1984,� 17. 37. Catherine T. Brody, �Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: The Dream and the Reality,� Bookmark 45 (fall 1986): 46; John N. DePew, �The ACRL Standards for Faculty Status: Panacea or Placebo,� College and Research Libraries 44 (Nov. 1983): 407�13. 38. �Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians,� College and Research Libraries News 5 (May 1992): 318.