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.