Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities

ACALIB-01686; No. of pages: 11; 4C: The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities William H. Walters Mary Alice & Tom O'Malley Library, Manhattan College, 4513 Manhattan College Parkway, Riverdale, NY 10471, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 26 October 2015 Accepted 10 November 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Academic librarians Factor analysis Faculty status Tenure

a b s t r a c t This survey of 124 library directors reveals that 52% of U.S. research universities grant nominal faculty status to librarians. The proportion granting faculty status has declined since 2008. Further survey results are provided for 12 distinct components of faculty status: nominal faculty status, tenure, professor ranks, peer review, scholarship, faculty senate, other committees, sabbaticals, flexible work, 9-month year, research funds, and equivalent salaries. Certain components of faculty status are substantially more or less common than faculty status itself, and nominal faculty status does not correspond to a clear-cut set of working conditions, rights, or responsibilities. A 5-tier hierarchy of faculty status indicators can be identified, and factor analysis can be used to create a single faculty status index that fully represents 9 of the 12 components of faculty status. The individual components that correspond most closely to the faculty status index are peer review and sabbaticals—not nominal faculty status. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Until the early decades of the twentieth century, most college and university librarians were selected from the ranks of the regular faculty (Church, 2002).1 “Libraries were invariably run by people who considered themselves scholars, not administrators or even necessarily librarians” (Biggs, 1981, p. 183). Since then, however, librarians and regular faculty have become increasingly divergent in their educational backgrounds, subject expertise, scholarly contributions, and teaching experiences (Cronin, 2001; Hill & Hauptman, 1986). Although librarians are counted as faculty at more than half of all U.S. colleges and universities, the differences between librarians and regular faculty can be seen in their responsibilities, backgrounds, benefits, and working conditions (Blixrud, 2000; DePew, 1983; Downs, 1964; Drobnicki, 2014). For example, librarians with faculty status may or may not be eligible for promotion, sabbaticals, and internal research funds. About 70% of librarians with faculty status are eligible for tenure, and fewer than 10% have nine-month contracts, according to Davidson, Thorson, and Stine (1983). In Ohio, only 44% of those with nominal faculty status have working conditions that conform to the facultystatus standards of the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) (Byerly, 1980). Even when librarians' official status is identical to that of the regular faculty, significant differences in interpretation and implementation persist. As Davidson, Thorson, and Trumpeter E-mail address: [email protected]. Regular faculty refers to full-time, tenure-track or tenured faculty with teaching, research, and service responsibilities (e.g., an associate professor of economics). Although some authors use the term teaching faculty to refer to non-librarian faculty, that term is inappropriate because it disregards the teaching component of librarians' work. 1

(1981, p. 210) have noted, “Equivalence between library faculty and teaching faculty is more often theoretical than real. … One [survey] respondent commented that while librarians were eligible for research leave, none had ever been granted. … Another responded that while eligibility for promotion existed, ‘the possibility of promotion is almost nil.’” Several hundred papers on librarians' faculty status have appeared over the past few decades.2 Most deal with one of several themes: • prevalence of faculty status and its various components • arguments for and against faculty status • differences between the faculty role and the librarian role; socialization and other processes that contribute to those differences • faculty status as a means of protecting librarians' academic freedom • faculty standards for promotion and tenure, and the ways in which librarians can meet those standards • impact of faculty status on outcomes such as job satisfaction and scholarly productivity • implications of faculty status for library management.

Faculty status is itself a nebulous concept, with meanings that differ widely among institutions (Bolin, 2008a). Any one component of faculty status, such as eligibility for tenure, eligibility for sabbaticals, or the use of peer review in promotion decisions, is likely to be found at only some 2 For current reviews and commentary, see Bernstein (2009); Coker, vanDuinkerken, and Bales (2010); Fleming-May & Douglass (2014); and Hill (2005). For summaries of research and opinion prior to 1980, see Axford et al. (1977); Biggs (1981); Krompart & DiFelice (1987), and Toy et al. (1978).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002 0099-1333/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002

2

W.H. Walters / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Percentage of colleges and universities where librarians have various components of faculty status, 1980–2015. Study ACRL standards for faculty status Association of College & Research Libraries (2012)

Faculty status

Tenure

Prof. ranks

Peer review

Promot. criteria

Faculty senate

Other cmtees.

Sabbaticals

Release time

9-mo. year

Rsrch. funds

Equiv. salaries

X

X

–

X

X

X

–

X

–

–

X

X

Research universities (mean value) Davidson et al. (1981)⁎ English (1983) English (1984) Payne & Wagner (1984) Mitchell & Swieszkowski (1985) Cosgriff, Kenney, & McMillan (1990) Bradigan & Mularski (1996) Leysen & Black (1998) Mitchell & Reichel (1999) Blixrud (2000) Welch & Mozenter (2006) Bolin (2008a) Bolin (2008b) Taylor & Lee (2014) This study

55 92 46 45 59 36 39 36 53 – 53 72 80 62 44 52

52 91 43 43 61 59 – – 33 54 38 43 68 51 45 41

37 73 24 30 – – – – 35 – – 35 42 28 – 27

75 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 75

65 91 – – 29 – – – – – – 76 – – – –

75 – – – – – – – – – – 79 86 67 – 67

94 100 – – – – – – – – – 87 – – – 95

65 95 51 47 – – – – 77 – – – – – – 55

75 95 81 – 46 – 87 – 78 – – 60 – – – –

13 – 25 26 8 – – – 0 – – – – – – 5

71 82 72 70 84 – 43 – 70 – – – – – – 78

14 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 14

4-year institutions (mean value) Byerly (1980)⁎ Davidson et al. (1981)⁎ Sharma (1981)⁎ Gray & McReynolds (1983)⁎ Hegg (1986)⁎

61 57 65 82 75 55 – 41 53

72 48 80 88 – – – – –

55 50 75 78 50 – 41 – 34

27 23 – – – – – – 30

46 42 83 30 – – 29 – –

73 73 – – – – – – –

86 91 100 – – – – – 68

53 49 83 – 27 – – – –

80 – 80 – – – – – –

4 2 5 3 7 – – – –

59 58 70 – – – – – 50

33 46 – 19 – – – – –

65 65 68 80 – 89 52 33

56 58 58 – 44 86 – 35

53 30 55 – – 74 – –

46 46 – – 45 – – –

– – – – – – – –

54 76 – – 31 – – –

– – – – – – – –

48 64 58 21 48 – – –

54 68 – 55 – 40 – –

11 16 20 3 – 11 5 –

65 55 68 – 71 – – –

39 – – – 39 – – –

100

70

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

6

–

–

Park & Riggs (1991) Park & Riggs (1993) Bolger & Smith (2006) 4- and 2-year institutions (mean value) Benedict, Gavryck, & Selvin (1983)⁎ Horenstein (1993) Rogers (1996)⁎ Cary (2001) Darby & Weatherford (2002)⁎ Vix & Buckman (2012)⁎ Freedman (2014)⁎ Librarians with faculty status Davidson et al. (1983)⁎

Four-year institutions include four-year colleges and universities of all types—liberal arts colleges, comprehensive universities, research universities, etc. Cary's (2001) data are from an ACRL survey conducted in 1999. ⁎ Asterisks indicate surveys that are statewide or regional rather than national (U.S.) in scope.

of the institutions that grant faculty status to librarians. As a result, studies of faculty status—case studies, in particular—often report findings that are not directly comparable with those of prior investigations. This paper explores the relationships among the various components of faculty status, first by presenting key findings from 30 studies that have evaluated the prevalence of faculty status in American colleges and universities, then by reporting on a faculty status survey completed by the library directors at 124 U.S. research universities. The survey data are used to clarify the relationships among 12 components of faculty status: nominal faculty status, tenure, professor ranks, peer review, scholarship, faculty senate, other committees, sabbaticals, flexible work, nine-month year, research funds, and equivalent salaries. The study addresses three main questions: RQ1. How prevalent is faculty status, and its various components, among U.S. research universities? RQ2. Is there a hierarchy among the components of faculty status? For instance, are nearly all the librarians with tenure also eligible for sabbaticals? Are nearly all those with professor ranks also eligible to serve on faculty senate? RQ3. Can the various components of faculty status be represented by a single dimension—a faculty status index—that measures the extent to which librarians' working conditions match those of regular faculty? If faculty status has multiple dimensions, can factor analysis be used to represent them in a complete but parsimonious way?

PREVIOUS RESEARCH TRENDS IN FACULTY STATUS Table 1 shows the relative number of colleges and universities that grant faculty status to librarians. (See the faculty status column, which refers to nominal faculty status—the designation of librarians as faculty rather than administrators or staff.) The table covers every U.S. faculty status survey published in a peer-reviewed journal from 1980 to the present, along with two related content analyses (Bolin, 2008a, 2008b) and two surveys sponsored by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) (Blixrud, 2000; Taylor & Lee, 2014).3 Two opposing trends might be expected to influence the proportion of librarians with faculty status. On the one hand, recent information literacy initiatives have brought greater recognition of the library's teaching function (Pinto & Sales, 2015; Pinto, Cordón, & Díaz, 2010; Salisbury & Sheridan, 2011) and perhaps a corresponding increase in the proportion of librarians with faculty status. On the other hand, the

3 Literature searches were undertaken in Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA); Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA); Library and Information Science Source; ProQuest Library Science; Education Source; and Academic Search Complete. Works dealing only with specialized groups (e.g., law librarians or librarians with doctorates) were excluded, as were surveys that made no distinction between faculty status and tenure (e.g., Siggins & Naylor, 1992).

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002

W.H. Walters / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

same financial constraints that have led to an increase in the number of adjunct faculty might encourage universities to limit the number of librarians with faculty or tenure-track status (Dunn, 2013). Overall, there is no clear evidence of a steady increase or decrease in the prevalence of faculty status over the past 35 years. The linear correlation (r2) between faculty status and year of the study is 0.32 or lower for each of the three groups shown in Table 1: research universities, four-year institutions, and four- and two-year institutions combined.4 However, the data do show a strong curvilinear trend: an initial decline in the prevalence of faculty status, then a long-term increase, then a recent decline (Fig. 1). The third-order polynomial r2 values are 0.79 (research universities) and 0.99 (four- and two-year institutions). The recent trend shown in Fig. 1 is consistent with reports that describe universities' decisions to hire new librarians as professionals or administrators rather than faculty (e.g., Annoyed Librarian, 2013; Dunn, 2013). Previous studies have discussed not just the prevalence of faculty status, but the kinds of colleges and universities that are most likely to extend faculty status to librarians. In particular, 1. Two-year colleges are more likely to grant faculty status than four-year undergraduate colleges (Benedict et al., 1983). 2. Public (rather than private) colleges and universities are especially likely to grant faculty status and tenure. This finding has been reported in at least seven studies (Benedict et al., 1983; Bolin, 2008b; Byerly, 1980; Davidson et al., 1981; English, 1983; Mitchell & Reichel, 1999; Vix & Buckman, 2012) and no contradictory results have been presented. In particular, librarians are counted as faculty at the vast majority of public land grant institutions (Bolin, 2008b). 3. Among private universities that award graduate degrees, those with the highest levels of research activity (represented by Carnegie classification) are less likely to grant faculty status than those with lower levels of research activity (Mitchell & Reichel, 1999). 4. Among nationally ranked liberal arts colleges, the more prestigious institutions are less likely to grant faculty status to librarians (Bolger & Smith, 2006). There is no consistent relationship between enrollment (number of students) and faculty status (Benedict et al., 1983; Bolin, 2008b; Byerly, 1980). The studies listed in Table 1 have assessed the prevalence of faculty status at various types of colleges and universities. Other information sources present data for individual institutions. For instance, Lewis (2015) maintains a wiki that lists the institutions that grant—or do not grant—faculty status and tenure. Lewis's data are neither representative nor entirely reliable, however. Any registered user may add an entry, and several universities appear in both the “with faculty status” and “without faculty status” categories. Casey et al. (2015) present data for 39 public universities similar to the University of Washington; Cason et al. (2005) present data for 13 research universities similar to the University of Georgia. Finally, Bolin (2008a, 2008b) provides information on faculty status, tenure, academic rank, and faculty senate eligibility for the 119 universities included in her content analyses. COMPONENTS OF FACULTY STATUS Table 1 presents data for the 12 components of faculty status that have been evaluated most often in previous research:

3

• professor ranks: Are they assigned the conventional faculty ranks of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor (rather than librarian-specific ranks or no ranks)? • peer review: Do they undergo a peer review process for promotion and/or tenure? • promotion criteria: Are they subject to the same promotion criteria as regular faculty? • faculty senate: Are they eligible to serve on faculty senate (or the equivalent body)? • other committees: Are they eligible to serve on other faculty committees? • sabbaticals: Are they eligible for semester- or year-long sabbaticals? • release time: Are they eligible to be granted release time (reassigned time) for scholarly work—either short-term mini-sabbaticals or time within the work week? • nine-month year: Do they have the same work year as regular faculty, with “summers off” for scholarly work, grant writing, course development, and related activities? • research funds: Are they eligible for research funds? • equivalent salaries: Do librarians' salaries match those of regular faculty with the same academic ranks?

The components of faculty status identified by Biggs (1981) seem to have served as a guide for later research. All the components mentioned by Biggs can be seen in Table 1. Moreover, 8 of the 12 components shown in the table are discussed in the Association of College & Research Libraries (2012) standards for faculty status. Table 1 does not show which components of faculty status most often occur together—whether, for instance, the universities that grant tenure to librarians are also especially likely to provide access to research funds. However, the table does indicate which components of faculty status are most prevalent. At research universities, seven components of faculty status—peer review, promotion criteria, faculty senate, other committees, sabbaticals, release time, and research funds—are actually more common than faculty status itself. Although these characteristics are often associated with faculty status, they can also be found at institutions where librarians are counted as administrators or staff. In contrast, four components of faculty status—tenure, professor ranks, nine-month year, and equivalent salaries—are less prevalent than nominal faculty status. Based on distinctions such as these, Bolin (2008a, 2008b) has identified four faculty-status arrangements found among ARL universities: • professorial: librarians have faculty status, are eligible for tenure, and have professor ranks (21% of institutions) • other ranks with tenure: librarians have faculty status, are eligible for tenure, and have other ranks (e.g., associate librarian, librarian III, senior librarian) (25%) • other ranks without tenure: librarians have faculty status, are not eligible for tenure, and have other ranks (11%) • non-faculty: librarians do not have faculty status (43%). Bolin's typology suggests a continuum of faculty status indicators, with professor rank as the strongest mark of faculty status (the least common attribute), tenure as the next strongest, and nominal faculty status as the weakest of the three indicators, since it may be granted without professor rank or tenure eligibility. DIMENSIONS OF FACULTY STATUS

• faculty status: Are librarians classified as faculty rather than administrators or staff? • tenure: Are they eligible for tenure? 4 Research universities most often refers to institutions that grant doctoral degrees in a range of fields. However, the exact meaning varies among studies.

Only one study has used statistical techniques to investigate the dimensions underlying the various components of faculty status—the broader attributes that can be identified based on the pattern of correlations among the components. Benedict et al. (1983) used factor analysis to examine the relationships among eight components of faculty status:

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002

4

W.H. Walters / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Percentage of research universities (1981–2014) and four- and two-year institutions (1983–2014) where librarians have faculty status. The data are from Table 1.

nominal faculty status, tenure, professor ranks, faculty senate, sabbaticals, release time for research, nine-month year, and release time for professional activities other than research. Their results, based on survey data for 188 libraries in New York State, suggest that the eight components can be represented by a single factor—a single underlying dimension—since every component of faculty status is moderately or strongly related to the others. Those results are incomplete, however, since Benedict et al. (1983) do not provide quantitative data for any aspect of their factor analysis. Likewise, they do not specify the factor extraction method or the criterion used to determine that just one factor was adequate to represent the set of eight variables. SURVEY METHODS In August 2015 the library directors (e.g., deans or university librarians) of 203 research universities were sent e-mail invitations asking them to complete a 12-question online survey, either personally or by delegating the task. Invitations were sent to the 202 ranked institutions in the National Universities category of U.S. News & World Report (2015) plus the one ARL university not included in that group.5 The survey questions (Appendix A) include items representing 10 of the 12 components of faculty status listed in Table 1. The question on release time was omitted due to difficulties of interpretation, since the absence of release time for scholarly activities could indicate either that librarians have relatively little time for scholarly work or that librarians' schedules (like those of many regular faculty) allow sufficient time for scholarly work without the need for designated release time. In place of release time, the survey included a question on flexible work (hours and locations), which may better represent the extent to which librarians' working conditions match those of the regular faculty. The question on promotion criteria was also omitted, since the comparability of the promotion criteria for regular faculty and librarians depends on whether reference, instruction, and other activities are regarded as a form of teaching. Two universities with identical criteria might give very different answers based on whether reference work (for instance) is counted as teaching or as service. Instead, the survey 5

National Universities with ratings of “unranked” or “rank not published” were excluded. Survey invitations were sent to the 99 ARL library directors on August 16 and to the other 104 library directors on August 22. Both groups completed the same survey.

includes a scholarship question that assess whether the scholarship/ research requirements for librarians are the same as those for regular faculty. Up to two reminders were sent to library directors who did not respond to the initial invitation, and the survey was closed on September 12, 2015. Responses were received from 124 institutions—a response rate of 61%. As Table 2 shows, the sample of respondents is representative of the study population in terms of institution type (public vs. private), ARL membership, reputation (USNWR rank), research productivity (ARWU U.S. rank), and library expenditures. The sample does modestly overrepresent universities with more than 30,000 FTE enrollment, however. Each survey question allowed for a number of substantive responses as well as responses of I prefer not to answer (treated as a missing value) and Other (please explain in the box, below). The Other responses were Table 2 Characteristics of the population (all institutions) and the sample (all respondents). Characteristic

Population

Sample

Number of institutions % public institutions % ARL institutions Average USNWR rank % among top 102 by USNWR rank % among top 52 by USNWR rank ARWU U.S. rank % among top 102 by ARWU U.S. rank % among top 50 by ARWU U.S. rank Median annual library expenditures ($M) % with expend. of b$11 M % with expend. of $11 M–$20.99 M % with expend of $21 M–$30.99 M % with expend. of N$30.99 M Average FTE enrollment (thousands) % with b10,001 FTE % with 10,001–20,000 FTE % with 20,001–30,000 FTE % with N30,000 FTE

203 59 49 100 50 26

124 61 50 104 48 22

45 23 14 40 30 15 15 19.12 28 29 29 15

47 23 15 40 28 16 15 20.49 25 29 27 19

USNWR is U.S. News & World Report (2015). ARWU is the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ShanghaiRanking Consultancy, 2015). Expenditure and enrollment data are from the National Center for Education Statistics (2012). None of the population/sample differences are significant at the 0.10 level except for average FTE enrollment (two-tailed t test, p = 0.04) and % with N30,000 FTE (two-tailed chi-squared test, p = 0.03).

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002

W.H. Walters / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

recoded based on the respondents' comments in the text boxes. (See Appendix A.)

Table 3 Distribution of responses to the 12 survey questions. Code

Response

RESULTS TRENDS IN FACULTY STATUS As shown in Appendix A, the survey allowed respondents to make nuanced distinctions about the various components of faculty status—to differentiate, for instance, between a peer review process that matches the one used for regular faculty and a peer review process that is unique to librarians. However, the most straightforward way to compare these results with those of previous studies is to simply assess the number of responses that can be regarded as yes responses—e.g., “yes, librarians have tenure” or “yes, librarians have a peer review process.” Yes responses are those coded 4 for scholarship; 3 for professor ranks, nine-month year, and equivalent salaries; and 2 or higher for each of the other survey questions. Table 1—the row labeled this study—shows the prevalence of yes responses for 10 of the 12 survey questions. Overall, 52% of responding institutions grant nominal faculty status to librarians. That value is comparable to the average for the 14 earlier studies of research universities (55%) and consistent with the trend shown in Fig. 1. The recent decline in the prevalence of faculty status can also be seen in the values for tenure, professor ranks, and faculty senate (Table 1). In each case, the current values are lower than those reported by Bolin (2008a, 2008b). COMPONENTS OF FACULTY STATUS Earlier studies have indicated that certain faculty rights and responsibilities, such as eligibility to serve on faculty senate, are granted to librarians more often than faculty status itself. The new results presented in Table 1 support that conclusion. In contrast, certain other components remain uncommon even among librarians with nominal faculty status. Table 1 shows, for example, that librarians have a nine-month work year at only 5% of responding institutions and faculty-equivalent salaries at only 14%. Only 13% of respondents reported that librarians have the same scholarship/research requirements as regular faculty, and only 17% reported that librarians may work from any location as long as they meet their attendance obligations for library instruction, reference/consultation hours, and meetings. The question on flexible work reveals a key distinction between regular faculty and administrative staff: whether each individual has broad flexibility in setting the times and places at which he or she works. Librarians, even those with faculty status, are more like administrators in that respect. Table 3 and Appendix B provide greater detail about the various components of faculty status. The data for all respondents (Table 3, first column) and the respondents' written comments suggest three general conclusions: 1. Clear-cut distinctions in status can be seen for just a few of the 12 questions (e.g., faculty status, faculty senate, and flexible work). For the other survey questions, respondents often chose or reported intermediate statuses different from those of both regular faculty and administrative staff. This is especially apparent in the responses for professor ranks, peer review, scholarship, other committees, and research funds. 2. There are six universities where some librarians have faculty status but others do not. The same situation (some librarians with faculty characteristics, others without) can be seen in the responses for tenure, professor ranks, peer review, faculty senate, and sabbaticals. At three of the six universities, the duties of each position determine whether faculty status is granted. (In at least one case, catalogers are counted as professional staff even though most of the librarians are faculty.) At two institutions, Iowa State University and South Dakota

5

Faculty status (n) 2⁎ Faculty 1.5 Some are faculty 1 Not faculty Tenure (n) 3⁎ Same as regular faculty 2⁎ Different conditions, or only some are eligible 1.5 Job security similar to tenure 1 Not eligible for tenure Professor ranks (n) 3⁎ Professor ranks 2 Other ranks, or only some have prof. ranks 1 No ranks Peer review (n) 3⁎ Same as regular faculty 2⁎ Different conditions, or only some have it 1 No peer review Scholarship (n) 4⁎ Same as regular faculty 3 Similar, or requirements vary 2 Essentially dissimilar 1 No scholarship/research requirement Faculty senate (n) 3⁎ Same as regular faculty 2⁎ Different conditions, or only some are eligible 1 Not eligible to serve on faculty senate Other committees (n) 3⁎ Same as regular faculty 2⁎ Different conditions (e.g., non-voting) 1 Not eligible to serve on committees Sabbaticals (n) 3⁎ Same as regular faculty 2⁎ Different conditions, or only some are eligible 1 Not eligible for sabbaticals Flexible work (n) 2⁎ Same as regular faculty 1.5 Intermediate status 1 Same as staff (non-faculty) Nine-month year (n) 3⁎ Same as regular faculty 2 Intermediate status 1 Same as staff (non-faculty) Research funds (n) 3⁎ Same as regular faculty 2⁎ Different conditions 1 Not eligible for internal research funds Equivalent salaries (n) 3⁎ Same as regular faculty 2 No good basis for comparison 1 Not equal to those of regular faculty

% among all % among respondents public univs.

% among top 102 univs. in USNWR

124 52 5 44 124 29 12

75 63⁎ 5⁎ 32⁎ 75 37⁎ 16⁎

60 37⁎ 2⁎ 62⁎ 60 15⁎ 7⁎

13 46 124 27 52

16⁎ 31⁎ 75 29⁎ 60⁎

23⁎ 55⁎ 60 17⁎ 63⁎

21 124 39 36

11⁎ 75 49⁎ 39⁎

20⁎ 60 25⁎ 47⁎

25 120 13 33

12⁎ 73 19⁎ 41⁎

28⁎ 60 5⁎ 25⁎

23 31

21⁎ 19⁎

35⁎ 35⁎

121 61 6

74 80⁎ 4⁎

58 43⁎ 5⁎

33

16⁎

52⁎

124 73 23

75 85⁎ 11⁎

60 62⁎ 32⁎

5

4⁎

7⁎

124 37 18

75 48⁎ 19⁎

60 22⁎ 22⁎

45 118 17 5 78 124 5 9 86 119 52 26 22

33⁎ 71 17 6 78 75 3 11 87 73 59 25 16

57⁎ 58 22 7 71 60 3 8 88 58 38⁎ 36⁎ 26⁎

118 14 69

73 12 73

57 11 74

17

15

16

USNWR is U.S. News & World Report (2015). n is the number of valid (non-missing) cases. ⁎ Response codes marked with asterisks are counted as yes responses in Table 1. The public univs. and top 102 values marked with asterisks are significantly different from the corresponding values for all respondents (two-tailed chi-squared test, p b 0.05).

State University, librarians were hired with faculty status until 2012 or 2013, when new policies were implemented. 3. Three of the survey questions—flexible work, research funds, and equivalent salaries—have relatively many missing values. Some

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002

6

W.H. Walters / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

respondents wrote that they were unaware of their institutions' policies because no librarians had asked for flexible work arrangements or applied for research funds. The most common response to the salary question was “no good basis for comparison”; respondents mentioned their lack of information about regular faculty salaries, the absence of systematic policies, union influence (on behalf of regular faculty, librarians, or both), and the influence of market forces at both the school/department and individual levels. Although the work location and salary questions were intended to address aspects of faculty status not covered in previous research, neither question was as useful as expected. Previous studies have reported that faculty status is especially common among librarians at public rather than private universities. That same relationship can be seen in Table 3, not just for nominal faculty status but for 8 of the 12 survey questions. Although ARL membership is not itself a strong correlate of faculty status, just 3 of the 18 private ARL universities in the sample grant faculty status to librarians. Likewise, Table 3 reveals that research universities ranked in the top 102 by U.S. News & World Report (2015) are especially unlikely to grant faculty status.6 A similar finding was reported more than 15 years ago by Mitchell & Reichel (1999). Together, these results suggest that librarians are least likely to have faculty status at the elite, private research universities—arguably, those where they are less prepared to meet the usual faculty requirements for tenure and promotion. As noted earlier, some components of faculty status are far more prevalent than others. It is therefore reasonable to expect that yes responses for the less common components of faculty status (e.g., professor ranks and equivalent salaries) may be reliable indicators of a university's position regarding the more common components (e.g., research funds and other committees). That is, we might expect that nearly all the librarians with professor ranks will also be eligible to apply for research funds. Table 4 supports that expectation, revealing a strong and consistent hierarchy among the components of faculty status. For instance,

Although the percentages themselves (Table 1) do not necessarily indicate that such a hierarchy exists, it does exist within this sample of research universities (Table 4). However, two components of faculty status—flexible work and nine-month year—do not have clear places in the hierarchy. Although fewer than 18% of respondents answered yes to either question, neither is a good predictor of respondents' answers to the other survey questions. For instance, librarians at a particular university may be free to work off campus despite their lack of faculty status or research funds. DIMENSIONS OF FACULTY STATUS

When librarians' conditions of employment includes a component of faculty status high in the hierarchy (e.g., professor ranks), they are likely to include most of the components lower in the hierarchy as well. Consequently, the components of faculty status highest in the hierarchy can be regarded as the most reliable signals that a librarian's status is similar to that of the regular faculty. The five levels of the hierarchy correspond closely to the relative number of universities that grant each component of faculty status.

Factor analysis, a statistical technique developed for use in psychometric research, has since been applied to a wide range of physical and social phenomena. It allows us to identify the factors (dimensions) underlying a set of variables—in this case, the dimensions underlying the 12 components of faculty status shown in Tables 3 and 4.7 For instance, it is possible that the 12 components represent two underlying dimensions, one related to research requirements/support and another incorporating the other aspects of faculty status. Alternatively, there may be four dimensions: privileges (incorporating faculty status, tenure, professor ranks, and equivalent salaries), requirements (peer review and scholarship), participation (faculty senate and other committees), and support for scholarly work (sabbaticals, flexible work, nine-month year, and research funds). There are many other possibilities, since factor analysis generates results based on empirical relationships (similarities and dissimilarities) rather than on theoretical or conceptual grounds. If there are multiple dimensions to faculty status, an institution may score high on one dimension but low on another. In contrast, a single dimension would indicate that faculty status can be regarded as a closely related set of attributes that tend to vary in tandem with each other. For these survey data, coded as shown in Table 3, Kaiser's (1960) eigenvalue-one criterion and Rummel's (1970) interpretability standard both indicate that the set of 12 components can be fully represented by three factors. The scree test (Cattell, 1966) suggests that one or two factors are sufficient. The three-factor results (Table 5) confirm that 9 of the 12 components of faculty status are closely related and can therefore be represented by a single factor. This is consistent with the findings reported by Benedict et al. (1983). Factor 1, most closely associated with peer review, has high loadings for eight other components of faculty status. That is, the loadings are high in both absolute terms (Factor 1 represents the components well) and relative terms (Factor 1 represents the components better than any other factor does). Factor 2 represents just one component of faculty status, ninemonth year, and Factor 3 represents just flexible work arrangements. Those two components emerge as separate factors because they are not closely associated with the others. Likewise, the salary question is not related to any of the three factors. In practical terms, these results demonstrate that a single factor can be used to represent 9 of the 12 components of faculty status. The other two factors are necessary to achieve completeness of representation but not to produce a useful composite indicator. By repeating the factor analysis with just the nine components of faculty status that have high loadings on Factor 1, we can create a faculty status index—a set of factor scores—that indicates the extent to which librarians' responsibilities and working conditions match those of the regular faculty. Appendix B presents the factor scores (faculty status index values) for the 58 universities that consented to the public dissemination of their data. Across all 124 institutions, the index has a mean value of 0.00 and a

6 ARL membership, research rank (ShanghaiRanking Consultancy, 2015), library expenditures, and FTE enrollment are all correlated with various components of faculty status to a modest extent. However, none of those relationships are as strong or consistent as those shown in Table 3.

7 The use of factor analysis is technically valid only if we accept the assumption that there are equal intervals between the response categories for the survey questions—that, for instance, a value of 2 is halfway between 1 and 3. For guides to factor analysis, see Child (2006), Kim & Mueller (1978a, 1978b), and Kline (1994).

• 91% of research universities with yes responses for professor ranks also gave yes responses for faculty status • 97% of those with yes responses for faculty status also gave yes responses for faculty senate • 91% of those with yes responses for faculty senate also gave yes responses for peer review • 99% of those with yes responses for peer review also allow librarians to serve on committees other than faculty senate.

More generally, the values in Table 4—in particular, the values of 90% or higher—suggest a five-tier hierarchy: Tier 1: professor ranks, scholarship, and equivalent salaries Tier 2: faculty status and tenure Tier 3: faculty senate and sabbaticals Tier 4: peer review and research funds Tier 5: other committees.

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002

W.H. Walters / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

7

Table 4 Percentage of respondents with yes responses to [column heading] who also gave yes responses to [row heading]. Component Faculty status Tenure Professor ranks Peer review Scholarship Faculty senate Other committees Sabbaticals Flexible work Nine-month year Research funds Equivalent salaries

Faculty status

Tenure

Prof. ranks

Peer review

Scholarship

Faculty senate

Other cmtees.

Sabbaticals

Off-campus

9-mo. year

Rsrch. funds

Equiv. salaries

– 63 47 94 24 97 100 77 18 8 94 25

78 – 53 100 31 98 100 94 22 10 94 29

91 82 – 97 39 97 100 91 25 12 97 31

65 55 34 – 18 81 99 71 17 5 87 18

94 94 75 100 – 100 100 100 38 19 100 20

75 61 38 91 21 – 100 72 15 6 89 21

54 43 28 78 14 70 – 57 17 4 81 15

72 71 44 97 25 87 99 – 21 7 93 25

55 50 40 75 32 61 95 65 – 15 90 20

83 83 67 83 50 83 83 83 50 – 83 50

65 52 34 86 18 78 99 68 21 5 – 19

94 82 59 94 18 100 100 94 27 18 100 –

Yes responses are those coded 4 for scholarship; 3 for professor ranks, nine-month year, and equivalent salaries; and 2 or higher for each of the other survey questions, as in Table 1.

standard deviation of 1.00. Unfortunately, the factor scores can be computed only for universities that provided complete data for all nine components of faculty status (i.e., no missing values). The factor analysis further reveals that at least two components of faculty status can each, individually, represent the set of nine components reasonably well. As noted earlier, nominal faculty status is not the single best indicator of faculty status, since it can be granted without all (or even many) of the associated rights and responsibilities. As Table 5 shows, the best single-measure indicators of faculty status are peer review and sabbaticals.8 Researchers who need a single facultystatus measure but must limit the number of survey questions they ask may find it useful to include a question about peer review or sabbaticals rather than asking “Do you have faculty status?” Alternatively, scholars who need an especially strict indicator of faculty status—one for which a yes response indicates a status most nearly comparable to that of the regular faculty—may want to ask one of the Tier 1 questions identified earlier (e.g., “Are librarians assigned conventional professor ranks?” or “Are they expected to meet the same scholarship/research requirements as regular faculty?”).

CONCLUSION This study addresses each of the three research questions mentioned in the Introduction. Specifically, RQ1. Fifty-two percent of American research universities grant nominal faculty status to librarians. These survey data, in combination with other recent empirical results, reveal that the proportion of research universities granting faculty status has declined since 2008. The available evidence suggests that ongoing fiscal constraints—in particular, the need to limit the number of tenured and tenure-track personnel (Dunn, 2013)—may have had a greater impact on librarians' faculty status than increased recognition of the library's teaching function (Pinto & Sales, 2015; Pinto et al., 2010; Salisbury & Sheridan, 2011). Another possibility is that the gap between librarians and regular faculty, in terms of scholarly expectations and performance, may have increased in recent years. RQ2. Certain components of faculty status are substantially more or less common than faculty status itself, and nominal faculty status does not correspond to a clear-cut set of working conditions, rights, or responsibilities. However, the survey results do reveal a five-tier hierarchy among the components of faculty status. Universities that grant the first-tier components of faculty status (professor ranks, scholarship, and equivalent salaries) are likely to grant the second-tier components as well; universities that grant the second-tier components (faculty status and tenure) are likely to grant the third-tier components, and so on. In 8 The results of the nine-component factor analysis are essentially the same, with peer review and sabbaticals again in first and second place, respectively.

general, the less prevalent components of faculty status appear higher in the hierarchy while the more prevalent components appear lower. RQ3. Three dimensions (factors) are needed to fully represent the 12 components of faculty status. However, nine key components of faculty status can be represented well by a single factor—a faculty status index. The individual components of faculty status most closely related to the faculty status index—those that best represent the set of components—are peer review and sabbaticals rather than nominal faculty status. The findings presented here may prove useful in other respects as well. In particular, this study • describes recent changes in the prevalence of faculty status (and its various components) through a systematic review of the literature • confirms that among American research universities, faculty status is more common at public (rather than private) institutions and less common at universities near the top of the U.S. News rankings • establishes baseline values for 12 components of faculty status that may be helpful as points of comparison for future studies • extends and updates the work of Bolin (2008a, 2008b); Casey et al. (2015); Cason et al. (2005), and Lewis (2015) by presenting information on the status of librarians at 58 research universities • draws attention to the fact that many components of faculty status are difficult to represent as simple yes-or-no questions.

Finally, these results highlight the discrepancies between the status of regular faculty, who can typically answer yes to each of the 12 survey questions, and librarians with faculty status, who can typically answer

Table 5 Factor analysis results (rotated factor loadings). Component Peer review Sabbaticals Tenure Scholarship Professor ranks Faculty status Faculty senate Research funds Other committees Nine-month year Flexible work Equivalent salaries Eigenvalue % explained

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

0.90 0.85 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.72 0.70 0.60 – – – 5.60 47.1

– – – – – – – – – 1.02 – – 2.04 9.2

– −0.25 −0.25 – – 0.23 0.47 – 0.43 – −0.35 – 0.87 4.6

h2 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.63 0.57 0.67 0.72 0.55 0.53 0.20 0.16 0.10 – –

Pattern matrix, unweighted least squares extraction with direct oblimin rotation. Loadings between −0.20 and 0.20 are not shown. Each component of faculty status was coded as shown in Table 3. h2 is the initial communality estimate—the proportion of the variance within each variable that is shared with the other variables in the set. % explained is the percentage of the common variance explained by each factor.

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002

8

W.H. Walters / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

yes to just 7 or 8 questions (mean = 7.4; median = 8.0).9 Librarians' faculty status is best understood in relative terms, since librarians often have responsibilities and working conditions intermediate between those of regular faculty and administrative staff. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for the advice and assistance of Esther Isabelle Wilder, Lee Anne George, Arnold Hirshon, Martha Kyrillidou, Shaneka Morris, the survey respondents, and two anonymous referees. APPENDIX A. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY OF LIBRARY DIRECTORS Respondents were instructed to “answer these questions with regard to the usual situation for professional librarians at your university [even though] conditions may be different for particular individuals. Throughout the survey, ‘regular faculty’ refers to professors in academic departments (anthropology, biology, etc.) who do not hold administrative positions.” Each question had two additional responses—I prefer not to answer (treated as a missing value) and Other (please explain in the box, below)—as well as a text box for comments. The Other responses were recoded based on the respondents' comments in the text boxes. Faculty status: Are librarians classified as faculty? 2. Librarians are faculty. 1. Librarians are included in some other personnel category (e.g., administrators, academic staff, professional staff). Recoding of Other responses: A code of 2 (faculty) was assigned if librarians were described as “administrative faculty” or “professional faculty” (two cases). This reflects the idea that any meaningful differences between regular faculty and administrative/professional faculty will be reflected in the other variables. A code of 1.5 was assigned to six institutions where only some librarians have faculty status. A code of 1 was assigned if descriptions such as “academic staff,” “faculty-equivalent staff,” “similar to faculty,” or “same bargaining unit as faculty” were used (eight cases). Tenure: Are librarians eligible for tenure? 3. Librarians are eligible for tenure on the same basis as regular faculty, either university-wide or within a particular college or school of the university (e.g., faculty in the College of Social Sciences or the School of Education). 2. Librarians are eligible for tenure, but the conditions of librarians' tenure are different from those that apply to the regular faculty. 1. Librarians are not eligible for tenure. Recoding of Other responses: A code of 3 was assigned to two universities where neither librarians nor regular faculty are eligible for tenure, since librarians are treated no differently than regular faculty at those institutions. A code of 2 was assigned to eight institutions, including seven where only some librarians are eligible for tenure. A code of 1.5 was assigned if a form of job security similar to tenure (e.g., “continuing appointment” or “career status”) was mentioned (16 cases). Professor ranks: Do librarians hold academic rank? 3. Librarians are assigned conventional professor ranks (i.e., instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor). 2. Librarians are assigned other ranks (e.g., librarian I, librarian II, assistant librarian, associate librarian, librarian). 1. Librarians do not hold ranks other than their functional titles (e.g., public services librarian, fine arts librarian, head of technical services). Recoding of Other responses: A code of 3 was assigned to two universities that use standard professor ranks in combination with other designations or modifiers (e.g., “associate professor librarian”). A code of 2 9 Librarians without faculty status can typically answer yes to just 3 questions (mean = 3.1; median = 3.0).

was assigned to five institutions where only some librarians have professor ranks. Codes of 2 (two cases) and 1 (three cases) were also assigned to reflect the situations at particular universities. Peer review: Is a peer review process used for librarians' promotion decisions? 3. Librarians are subject to the same peer review process as regular faculty, either university-wide or within a particular college or school of the university (e.g., faculty in the College of Social Sciences or the School of Education). 2. Librarians are subject to a peer review process that is different from the process used for regular faculty. 1. No form of peer review is used for librarians' promotion decisions. Recoding of Other responses: A code of 2 was assigned to four institutions where only some librarians are subject to peer review and to two with a peer review process different from that used for regular faculty. A code of 1 was assigned to four institutions that have no provision for the promotion or tenure of librarians and to three at which there is no peer review process for librarians. Scholarship: What are the scholarship/research requirements for librarians? 4. The scholarship/research requirements for librarians are the same as those that apply to regular faculty, either university-wide or within a particular college or school of the university (e.g., faculty in the College of Social Sciences or the School of Education). 3. The scholarship/research requirements for librarians are based on those that apply to regular faculty, but with important modifications. 2. The scholarship/research for librarians are essentially unlike those used for regular faculty. 1. There are no defined scholarship/research requirements for librarians. Recoding of Other responses: A code of 3 was assigned to four institutions where only some librarians have the same scholarship requirements as regular faculty. A code of 2 was assigned when respondents' comments suggested that it was appropriate (six cases). The missing value designation was assigned to four universities where the standards for scholarly work are unique to each department. Faculty senate: Are librarians eligible to serve on faculty senate or the equivalent body? 3. Librarians are eligible to serve and vote in faculty senate on the same basis as regular faculty. 2. Librarians are eligible to serve on faculty senate but do not have the same privileges (e.g., voting rights) as regular faculty. 1. Librarians are not eligible to serve on faculty senate. Recoding of Other responses: A code of 2 was assigned to two institutions where only some librarians can serve on faculty senate. Codes of 2 (two cases) and 1 (six cases) were assigned based on the situations at particular universities. The missing value designation was assigned to three universities that have no body equivalent to a faculty senate. Other committees: Are librarians eligible to serve on universitywide committees other than faculty senate? 3. Librarians are eligible to serve and vote on the same basis as regular faculty. 2. Librarians are eligible to serve but do not have the same privileges (e.g., voting rights) as regular faculty. 1. Librarians are not eligible to serve. Recoding of Other responses: A code of 2 was assigned to all 15 cases for which respondents chose Other. At each of those institutions, the status of librarians is intermediate between that of the regular faculty and that of the administrative staff. Sabbaticals: Are librarians eligible for sabbaticals (research or professional development leaves of one semester or longer)? 3. Librarians are eligible for sabbaticals on the same basis as regular faculty, either university-wide or within a particular college or school of the university (e.g., faculty in the College of Social Sciences or the School of Education).

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002

W.H. Walters / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

9

A code of 2 was assigned to three institutions where all librarians and a substantial number of regular faculty have 12-month contracts. Codes of 2 and 1 were assigned to universities that matched those categories exactly (two and seventeen cases, respectively) or approximately (two cases each). Research funds: Are librarians eligible for internal research funds (funds granted by the university or by agencies within the university)? 3. Librarians are eligible for internal research funds on the same basis as regular faculty, either university-wide or within a particular college or school of the university (e.g., faculty in the College of Social Sciences or the School of Education). 2. Librarians are eligible for internal research funds, but the conditions or requirements are different from those that apply to regular faculty. 1. Librarians are not eligible for internal research funds. Recoding of Other responses: Codes of 3 (two cases), 2 (six cases), and 1 (one case) were assigned based on the respondents' comments. The missing value designation was assigned in three cases. Equivalent salaries: Do librarians' salaries match those of the regular faculty? 3. Salary bands or ranges are used to set the salaries of regular faculty, and librarians' salaries are equal to those of regular faculty of the same or equivalent academic rank, either university-wide or within a particular college or school of the university (e.g., faculty in the College of Social Sciences or the School of Education). 2. There is no good basis for comparison, since either (a) salary bands or ranges are not used to set the salaries of the regular faculty, or (b) librarians do not have ranks equivalent to those of the regular faculty. 1. Salary bands or ranges are used to set the salaries of regular faculty, and librarians' salaries are not equal to those of regular faculty of the same or equivalent academic rank. Recoding of Other responses: Respondents' comments were used to place each university in the nearest matching category: 3 (four cases), 2 (fourteen cases), or 1 (six cases). The missing value designation was used to represent responses such as “not sure” and “don't know” (five cases).

2. Librarians are eligible for sabbaticals, but the conditions or requirements are different from those that apply to regular faculty. 1. Librarians are not eligible for sabbaticals. Recoding of Other responses: A code of 3 was assigned to two universities where librarians are eligible for sabbaticals but do not normally apply (since eligibility is the focus of the question) and to one university where neither librarians nor regular faculty are eligible for sabbaticals (since librarians are treated no differently than regular faculty at that institution). A code of 2 was assigned to two institutions where only some librarians are eligible for sabbaticals and to five that offer librarians a similar but distinct type of research leave. A code of 1 was assigned in two cases. Flexible work: Are librarians required to be on campus during specified hours other than the hours in which they are engaged in library instruction, reference/consultation, and meetings? 2. No, they are not required to be on campus during specified hours; presence on campus is required only for library instruction, reference/ consultation hours, and meetings. 1. Yes, they are required to be on campus during specified hours, which may vary from one individual to another. Recoding of Other responses: A code of 1.5 was assigned if respondents reported an expectation clearly intermediate between codes 1 and 2 (six cases)—if, for example, librarians may work off campus but are required to schedule such hours in advance. A code of 1 was assigned to seven institutions where the expectation of on-campus work is so strong that it can be regarded as a requirement. The missing value designation was used when the most appropriate code could not be determined (four cases). Nine-month year: What is the librarians' usual work year (excluding non-required summer work for which special compensation is provided)? 3. Librarians have the same work year as regular faculty. 2. The librarians' work year is longer than that of the regular faculty but shorter than that of most staff. 1. The librarians' work year is the same as that of most staff. Recoding of Other responses: A code of 3 was assigned to one institution where both librarians and regular faculty have 12-month contracts.

APPENDIX B

Survey responses and faculty status index values (factor scores) of universities that consented to the public dissemination of their data. University

Adelphi U. American U. Andrews U. Azusa Pacific U. Boston U. Bowling Green State U. California Inst. of Tech. Case Western Reserve U. Central Michigan U. Clemson U. Dartmouth College Duke U. Edgewood College Emory U. Florida State U. Georgia Inst. of Tech. Illinois State U. Indiana U., Bloomington Iowa State U. Michigan Technological U. North Dakota State U.

Faculty status (1–2) 2.0 1.5⁎ 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0⁎ 1.5⁎ 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0⁎ 2.0 2.0 1.5⁎ 1.0⁎ 1.5⁎ 1.0 1.0

Tenure Prof. ranks (1–3) (1–3) 3.0 2.0⁎ 3.0 3.0⁎

Peer review (1–3)

Scholarship Faculty senate (1–4) (1–3)

Other cmtees. (1–3)

Sabbaticals Off-campus 9-mo. year (1–3) (1–2) (1–3)

1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0⁎

3.0 2.0⁎ 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0⁎

3.0 2.0⁎ 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0⁎

3.0 3.0⁎ 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0⁎ 3.0⁎

3.0 2.0⁎ 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0⁎

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0⁎ 3.0 1.0 2.0⁎ 2.0⁎

3.0 2.0⁎ 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0⁎

3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5⁎ 1.0 2.0⁎

2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0⁎ 2.0 2.0⁎

3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0⁎

3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 –⁎

2.0 2.0⁎ 1.0 1.0

3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0⁎

3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0

3.0 3.0 2.0⁎ 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0

3.0 1.0 2.0⁎ 1.0 1.0⁎ 2.0⁎ 3.0⁎ 3.0⁎

2.0 2.0⁎ 1.0 1.0

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0⁎ 1.0⁎ 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0

3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0 1.0⁎

3.0 1.0 3.0⁎

2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 –⁎ 1.5⁎

3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0⁎ 1.0⁎

2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0⁎ 1.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0⁎ 1.0 1.0⁎ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Rsrch. funds (1–3)

Equiv. salaries (1–3)

3.0 3.0⁎ 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0⁎ 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 –⁎ 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0

3.0 –⁎ 2.0⁎ 3.0 2.0 2.0⁎ 1.0 1.0⁎ 2.0⁎ 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0⁎ 2.0 2.0⁎ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Faculty status index 1.20 – 1.29 1.29 −1.17 1.20 −1.51 −0.49 −0.11 1.07 −0.62 −0.52 −1.48 – 0.69 0.29 – 0.54 0.69 −0.86 −1.51

(continued on next page)

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002

10

W.H. Walters / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

APPENDIX (continued)B (continued) University

Northern Illinois U. Ohio State U. Penn. State U. Purdue U. Saint Louis U. Seton Hall U. South Dakota State U. Southern Methodist U. St. John Fisher College Stevens Inst. of Tech. Texas A&M U. Tufts U. Tulane U. U. of Alabama, Birmingham U. of Arkansas U. of California, Los Angeles U. of California, San Diego U. of Colorado, Boulder U. of Dayton U. of Denver U. of Georgia U. of Illinois, Chicago U. of Iowa U. of Minnesota U. of Mississippi U. of Missouri, Columbia U. of Missouri, Kansas City U. of Nebraska, Lincoln U. of Nevada, Reno U. of New Mexico U. of North Dakota U. of Pennsylvania U. of South Florida U. of the Pacific U. of Tulsa Wayne State U. Worcester Polytechnic Inst.

Faculty status (1–2)

Tenure Prof. ranks (1–3) (1–3)

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0⁎

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0⁎

3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0⁎ 2.0⁎

1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.5⁎

2.0

1.0

2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0

2.0 1.0

2.0 1.5⁎

1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0⁎ 1.0 2.0 1.5⁎

1.5⁎ 3.0 3.0 1.5⁎

1.0 1.0 1.0

1.0 2.0⁎ 1.0

1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0⁎

Peer review (1–3) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0⁎ 1.0⁎ 1.0⁎

Scholarship Faculty senate (1–4) (1–3) 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0⁎

Other cmtees. (1–3) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0⁎

1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0

2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.0

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0⁎ 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0

3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0

3.0⁎ 3.0

3.0 2.0

3.0 2.0

3.0 1.0

2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

2.0 4.0 –⁎

1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0⁎ 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 –⁎ 1.0 3.0⁎ 1.0

Sabbaticals Off-campus 9-mo. year (1–3) (1–2) (1–3) 1.0 1.0⁎ 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0⁎ 1.0⁎

1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

1.0 1.5⁎ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

3.0 2.0⁎

3.0 1.0

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0⁎ 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0⁎

2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

3.0 2.0⁎

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0⁎

Rsrch. funds (1–3)

Equiv. salaries (1–3)

Faculty status index

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0⁎ 1.0 2.0 1.0

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0

2.0 1.0⁎ 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0⁎ 2.0⁎ 2.0⁎ 2.0 2.0⁎ 2.0 1.0 2.0

1.29 1.20 1.07 1.20 0.39 1.20 0.60 −1.26 −0.71 −1.48 1.29 −0.84 −0.49 0.93

1.0 1.0

1.0⁎ 1.0

3.0 2.0⁎

1.0⁎ 2.0⁎

1.07 −0.63

2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 –⁎ 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 –⁎

1.0 1.0⁎ 2.0⁎

2.0 3.0 2.0⁎

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0⁎

3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0⁎ 2.0

1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0⁎

−0.47 1.29 – 1.00 −0.07 1.29 −0.65 0.10 1.29 −0.06 0.44 1.11 0.62 1.29 −1.03 −1.14 0.80 – −1.35 −0.25 −1.39

1.0 1.0 1.0

3.0 1.0 2.0⁎ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2.0 1.0⁎ 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0⁎ 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 –⁎ 2.0 2.0 2.0

See Table 3 or Appendix A for the meaning of each response code. Factor scores were calculated using the regression method with pairwise exclusion of missing values. ⁎ Asterisks indicate values that were recoded from Other (please explain in the box, below) based on respondents' comments.

REFERENCES Annoyed Librarian (2013, March 11). Goodbye, faculty status. Library Journal (http://lj. libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2013/03/11/goodbye-faculty-status/). Association of College & Research Libraries (2012). Standards for faculty status for academic librarians. College & Research Libraries News, 73(3), 160–161. Axford, H. W., Oboler, E., Toy, B., Galloway, R. D., Schmidt, C. J., Powell, L. C., ... Pierson, R. M. (1977). The three faces of Eve, or The identity of academic librarianship: A symposium. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 2(6), 276–285. Benedict, M. A., Gavryck, J. A., & Selvin, H. C. (1983). Status of academic librarians in New York State. College & Research Libraries, 44(1), 12–19. Bernstein, A. M. (2009). Academic librarians and faculty status: Mountain, molehill or mesa? Georgia Library Quarterly, 46(2), 12–15. Biggs, M. (1981). Sources of tension and conflict between librarians and faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 52(2), 182–201. Blixrud, J. C. (2000). The M.L.S. hiring requirement. SPEC kit 257. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Bolger, D. F., & Smith, E. T. (2006). Faculty status and rank at liberal arts colleges: An investigation into the correlation among faculty status, professional rights and responsibilities, and overall institutional quality. College & Research Libraries, 67(3), 217–229. Bolin, M. K. (2008a). A typology of librarian status at land grant universities. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 34(3), 220–230. Bolin, M. K. (2008b). Librarian status at U.S. research universities: Extending the typology. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 34(5), 416–424. Bradigan, P. S., & Mularski, C. A. (1996). Evaluation of academic librarians' publications for tenure and initial promotion. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 22(5), 360–365. Byerly, G. (1980). The faculty status of academic librarians in Ohio. College & Research Libraries, 41(5), 422–429. Cary, S. (2001). Faculty rank, status, and tenure for librarians. College & Research Libraries News, 62(5), 510–511 520.

Casey, C., Lillard, L., Raftus, D., Redalje, S., Richards, L., Romaine, S., ... Wright, S. (2015). Promotion & tenure requirements for peer institutions. Seattle: University of Washington (http://staffweb.lib.washington.edu/committees/aluw/status/p-t-information/peers). Cason, C., Devaney, S., Graham, S., Hughes, N., King, F., McAlister, S., & Trap, D. (2005). Report of the extended contracts working group, Appendix B. Athens: University of Georgia (http://www.libs.uga.edu/staff/appendixa.pdf). Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Bloomsbury. Church, G. M. (2002). In the eye of the beholder: How librarians have been viewed over time. The Reference Librarian, 37(78), 5–24. Coker, C., vanDuinkerken, W., & Bales, S. (2010). Seeking full citizenship: A defense of tenure faculty status for librarians. College & Research Libraries, 71(5), 406–420. Cosgriff, J., Kenney, D., & McMillan, G. (1990). Support for publishing at academic libraries: How much exists? Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 16(2), 94–97. Cronin, B. (2001). The mother of all myths. Library Journal, 126(3), 144. Darby, D. H., & Weatherford, K. C. (2002). Academic librarian status and benefits in Alabama. Alabama Librarian, 52(1), 13–19. Davidson, R., Thorson, C. C., & Trumpeter, M. C. (1981). Faculty status for librarians in the Rocky Mountain region: A review and analysis. College & Research Libraries, 42(3), 203–213. Davidson, R., Thorson, C. C., & Stine, D. (1983). Faculty status for librarians: Querying the troops. College & Research Libraries, 44(6), 414–420. DePew, J. N. (1983). The ACRL standards for faculty status: Panacea or placebo? College & Research Libraries, 44(6), 407–413. Downs, R. B. (1964). Status of university librarians—1964. College & Research Libraries, 25(4), 253–258. Drobnicki, J. A. (2014). CUNY librarians and faculty status: Past, present, and future. Urban Library Journal, 20(1), 1–10. Dunn, S. (2013). As their roles change, some librarians lose faculty status. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(28), A6 (March 22).

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002

W.H. Walters / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx English, T. G. (1983). Librarian status in the eighty-nine U.S. academic institutions of the Association of Research Libraries: 1982. College & Research Libraries, 44(3), 199–211. English, T. G. (1984). Administrators' views of library personnel status. College & Research Libraries, 45(3), 189–195. Fleming-May, R. A., & Douglass, K. (2014). Framing librarianship in the academy: An analysis using Bolman and Deal's model of organizations. College & Research Libraries, 75(3), 389–415. Freedman, S. (2014). Faculty status, tenure, and professional identity: A pilot study of academic librarians in New England. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(4), 533–565. Gray, B. B., & McReynolds, R. (1983). A comparison of academic librarians with and without faculty status in the Southeast. College & Research Libraries, 44(4), 283–287. Hegg, J. L. (1986). Faculty status: Some expected and some not-so-expected findings. Journal of Library Administration, 6(4), 67–79. Hill, J. S. (2005). Constant vigilance, babelfish, and foot surgery: Perspectives on faculty status and tenure for academic librarians. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(1), 7–22. Hill, F. E., & Hauptman, R. (1986). A new perspective on faculty status. College & Research Libraries, 47(2), 156–159. Horenstein, B. (1993). Job satisfaction of academic librarians: An examination of the relationships between satisfaction, faculty status, and participation. College & Research Libraries, 54(3), 255–269. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. Kim, J., & Mueller, C. W. (1978a). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, no.14, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kim, J., & Mueller, C. W. (1978b). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, no.13, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge. Krompart, J., & DiFelice, C. (1987). A review of faculty status surveys, 1971–1984. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 13(1), 14–18. Lewis, C. (2015). Academic librarian status: A guide to the professional status of academic librarians in the United States (and other places). Washington, DC: Chris Lewis (http://academic-librarian-status.wikispaces.com/). Leysen, J. M., & Black, W. K. (1998). Peer review in Carnegie research libraries. College & Research Libraries, 59(6), 512–522. Mitchell, W. B., & Reichel, M. (1999). Publish or perish: A dilemma for academic librarians? College & Research Libraries, 60(3), 232–243. Mitchell, W. B., & Swieszkowski, L. S. (1985). Publication requirements and tenure approval rates: An issue for academic librarians. College & Research Libraries, 46(3), 249–255. National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Library statistics program: Academic libraries survey, fiscal year: 2012. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/academic.asp).

11

Park, B., & Riggs, R. (1991). Status of the profession: A 1989 national survey of tenure and promotion policies for academic librarians. College & Research Libraries, 52(3), 275–289. Park, B., & Riggs, R. (1993). Tenure and promotion: A study of practices by institutional type. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 19(2), 72–77. Payne, J., & Wagner, J. (1984). Librarians, publication, and tenure. College & Research Libraries, 45(2), 133–139. Pinto, M., & Sales, D. (2015). Uncovering information literacy's disciplinary differences through students' attitudes: An empirical study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 47(3), 204–215. Pinto, M., Cordón, J. A., & Díaz, R. G. (2010). Thirty years of information literacy (1977–2007): A terminological, conceptual and statistical analysis. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42(1), 3–19. Rogers, S. E. (1996). Support for research and publishing in Tennessee's academic libraries: A survey of college and university librarians. Tennessee Libraries, 48(2), 35–43. Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Salisbury, F., & Sheridan, L. (2011). Mapping the journey: Developing an information literacy strategy as part of curriculum reform. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 43(3), 185–193. ShanghaiRanking Consultancy (2015). Academic ranking of world universities 2015. Shanghai: ShanghaiRanking Consultancy (http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2015. html). Sharma, P. (1981). A survey of academic librarians and their opinions related to nine-month contracts and academic status configurations in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. College & Research Libraries, 42(6), 561–570. Siggins, J., & Naylor, R. P. (1992). Academic status for librarians in ARL libraries. SPEC kit 182. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Taylor, M. A., & Lee, E. (2014). Talent management. SPEC kit 344. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Toy, B. J., Krieger, T., Axford, H. W., Wyatt, J. F., Lynch, B. P., Bridegam, W., ... Tanis, N. E. (1978). Role of the academic librarian: A symposium. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 4(3), 128–138. U.S. News & World Report (2015). Best colleges: National universities rankings. New York: U.S. News & World Report (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/ rankings/national-universities). Vix, H. M., & Buckman, K. M. (2012). Academic librarians: Status, privileges, and rights. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 38(1), 20–25. Welch, J. M., & Mozenter, F. L. (2006). Loosening the ties that bind: Academic librarians and tenure. College & Research Libraries, 67(2), 164–176.

Please cite this article as: Walters, W.H., Faculty status of librarians at U.S. research universities, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002