- Email: [email protected]
Librarian Sabbatical Leaves: Do We Need to Get Out More?
Librarian Sabbatical Leaves: Do We Need to Get Out More? by Molly R. Flaspohler Available online 24 February 2009
This article continues the conversation about librarian sabbatical participation. Analyses are based on quantitative and qualitative data gathered using an online questionnaire. While numerical results show little change in sabbatical participation over time, respondents had much to say about this topic. The author highlights common themes using various textual responses.
INTRODUCTION In “Losing Our Minds,” an insightful editorial written three years ago, Justine Alsop considers the speed with which technology has infiltrated our lives and added layers of complexity to some of our most basic societal interchanges. Alsop cogently describes her concerns about the consequences of such rapid technological expansion, highlighting her unease with the effect technology has had on our capacity for deep reading and contemplation, skills that she believes are no longer encouraged in an “increasingly rushed society.”1 Alsop's final message is particularly salient: As humans, a bit of stress can be a good thing — we need to be challenged and engaged; but, in the same (sic), we have a vital need for quiet reflection, the opportunity to make sense of what we take in through our senses and through our research.2
Molly R. Flaspohler, Carl B. Ylvisaker Library, Concordia College, Moorhead, MN, USA.
Cautionary appeals such as Alsop's are certainly not new, nor by any means are they limited to being made by members of the library profession. However, such admonitions have gained importance within the literature of library science because of their likely connection to studies on stress and burnout in libraries. One example of research in this vein is David Fox's recent survey of Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL). In his study, Fox finds that amongst librarian respondents “time conflict is a major obstacle to greater participation in scholarly activity.”3 In addition to reporting a work week that on average extends well beyond 40 h/week, these librarians maintain that there are “significant demands” and challenges related to “balancing professional practice, scholarship, and (the) service elements” of their profession.4 While Fox's study recognizes that librarianship is certainly not the only profession struggling with challenges brought about by burgeoning technological advances and an increasingly fast-paced work environment, he does seem to agree with the idea that librarians ought to get out more as he affirms their need to “take advantage of their eligibility for sabbatical leave.”5 Is it really possible that librarians still
152 The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 35, Number 2, pages 152–161
need to be reminded to take a break once and a while? Perhaps… In an article written in 1990 Sally Jo Reynolds noted her surprise at learning that during the ten years prior, an evaluative body of literature that systematically explored the sabbatical leave experience never really developed.6 That same year Seymour B. Sarason referred to what he termed a persistent “silence about sabbaticals”7 within the context of his book on educational reform. Almost twenty years later, though there is some evidence showing an increase in the usage of sabbatical-type leaves by occupations outside of higher education,8–10 studies that empirically examine sabbatical leave systems and/or their outcomes remain in surprisingly short supply.
“Is it really possible that librarians still need to be reminded to take a break once and a while?” For those academic librarians who report their ineligibility for or their inability to take even the most abbreviated of sabbaticals, procuring a respite from the deleterious effects that “stress, technology, and multitasking are having on our souls and on our collective intellect”11 remains a particularly frustrating and discouraging characteristic of the profession. As recently as 2001, Carolyn Gaskell and Allen S. Morril found that librarians at just over half of the institutions they surveyed were eligible to take a sabbatical leave.12 While many authors may agree with Marlis Hubbard who believes “Creating sabbaticals that are truly invigorating is … crucial to one's well being,”13 as Karen F. Smith notes, even at institutions where sabbatical leaves are available, only the most “avid” librarians seem to apply.14 It appears then that the need for rigorous qualitative and quantitative examinations into the value of, and explicit relationship between, sabbatical leave practices and the academic institutions which grant them persists.15–17 The overarching goal of this article is to return to what has been a somewhat discontinuous conversation about academic librarian sabbatical leave participation. The paper's more explicit analyses are based on data gathered from a brief online survey of randomly selected academic libraries of all sizes and types. While this survey's resulting numerical data shows little change in actual participation over time,18–20 it also uncovers questionnaire respondents who had a great deal to say about this topic. Accordingly, the following article is largely written to give voice to a variety of survey respondents' interesting responses to open-ended survey questions concerning their own institutional sabbatical leave opportunities.
LITERATURE REVIEW The body of research surrounding sabbatical leave practices is remarkably small, particularly when narrowed to studies focused solely on librarianship. Still,
Smith's 1979 work provides an early look into the sabbatical practices of 543 tenured librarians from large academic libraries. According to her data, librarians who took advantage of sabbatical leaves during this period were, “active in the profession, (had) scholarly inclinations, and (had) been entrusted with increased responsibility in their libraries.”21 Yet, Smith's study also showed that there were many librarians who demonstrated these characteristics even though they had never taken a sabbatical leave.22 Ultimately, this study found that for a variety of reasons, (institutional, administrative and personal) 65% of those librarians who reported being eligible for sabbatical leaves had never actually taken one. Whatever their reasons for not taking advantage of sabbatical leaves, librarians seem to have had little enthusiasm for researching and writing about them either. In 1997 Carl H. Boening and Michael T. Miller conducted a review and analysis of the existing work concerning college faculty sabbatical leave practice.23 Of the 16 articles they reference, only one is written by someone from within the library profession. Additionally, these authors found that while narratives touting the restorative benefits of sabbaticals have been published, a great deal of work still needs to be done to systematically examine “the processes and products of sabbaticals, particularly outcomes of sabbaticals and the benefits to institutions that leaves of this nature may produce.”24 In 2001 Gaskell and Morril assembled a number of travel, sabbatical, and study leave policies for the Association of College and Research Libraries' CLIP Note series. 25 In addition to providing copies of individual policies, this publication also shared the results of a survey completed by individuals at 127 public and private academic libraries. Although only two of Gaskell and Morril's questions explicitly asked about sabbatical leave practices, they concluded that such leaves were “available to librarians at 56% of the institutions surveyed” and handled in “a wide variety” of ways.26 This finding compares to Smith's research as 41% of her questionnaire respondents reported having either no sabbatical option or having never implemented one.27 Additionally, Virginia Vesper and Gloria Kelley (1997) reported that 59% of their own 155 CLIP Note survey respondents claimed sabbatical leave eligibility.28 Unfortunately, though both CLIP studies asked respondents to comment on institutional sabbatical eligibility, neither report followed up by asking participants to indicate the number of librarians who had actually taken advantage of this option. What remains of the literature on librarian sabbatical leave practice can be divided into one of two categories: the personal narrative29–32 or the descriptive/informative review article.33 These methodological approaches tend also to prevail even when the search is extended beyond librarianship into related professions such as education.34–37 While it might be pleasant to read the informal account of a librarian who took an unpaid sabbatical leave after becoming stuck in the “ebb tide on give-a-hoot beach,” 38 or to learn that sabbaticals provide “an opening through which to take measure March 2009 153
of things,”39 or to discover that a “sabbatical in its ideal form leaves professionals delightfully satisfied,”40 it is also very difficult to imagine relying upon such narratives to provide compelling arguments in favor of granting sabbatical leaves to librarians. Regrettably, this kind of writing is simply not likely to convince those college administrators, “who really have no plans or expectations for the library except the hope that it will stay within the allocated budget and that the faculty and the students … will not complain too strenuously about it.”41 It seems therefore, that literature examining librarian sabbatical leave participation could benefit from increased consideration and heightened rigor.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS It is now time to acknowledge that this author is one of the fortunate few within the library profession to currently be enjoying a year-long sabbatical. Yet, my own experience also demonstrates that such “acceptance into full faculty collegiality is not generally extended.”42 For example, I am keenly aware of the fact that one of my library faculty colleagues recently had a sabbatical leave application denied because it was not considered academic enough. Although her leave proposal included completion of a thesis finalizing her second Master's degree in addition to taking part in hours of long-distance training in preparation for our library's migration to a new online system, the nonlibrarian faculty members of my colleague's leave committee did not view such training as sabbaticalworthy. Disappointingly, this librarian's application was the only leave proposal to be denied by the institution at the time, despite the fact that complex library migrations represent exactly the kind of “demand for continuous cutting-edge knowledge acquisition, development, and dissemination (that) is not typical of the vast majority of careers.”43 Finally, after rewriting and resubmitting her proposal the following semester, this librarian was still asked to segment her single-semester leave into smaller pieces over time — a request that is rarely, if ever, made of teaching faculty. Lest I leave readers with the wrong impression, let me be clear that my institution is a good place for librarians to work. With the exception of tenure and eligibility for one or two academic committees, librarians at my college have full faculty status. Our leadership is strong and the staff is highly skilled and serviceoriented. We work with an exceptional teaching faculty, a reasonably engaged student body and the librarians at my institution look forward to lengthy, fulfilling careers. Nevertheless, involvement in the institutional sabbatical leave program remains inconsistent, due in part to the difficulties (perceived and real) librarians face explaining the nature of our academic work to nonlibrarian colleagues. Therefore, as I was preparing my own sabbatical leave application I began to wonder if similar challenges exist at other academic institutions and whether or not less-than-enthusiastic participation in sabbatical leave programs (where available) is common. How widespread are sabbatical-challenge stories such as my 154 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
colleague's? In light of the noteworthy spate of research on stress and burnout in libraries,44–51 why are so many librarians not taking sabbatical leaves? As these authors have shown, librarians do suffer job-dissatisfaction and burnout.52–57 Shouldn't we be making a more determined effort to get out a bit more?
METHODOLOGY Because it was quite easy to use and provided a wealth of reasonably up-to-date information, the author chose to use a free online directory called “lib-web-cats” (library web sites and catalogs). Though most of the entries are libraries located in North America, the site bills itself as a “directory of libraries worldwide” and is located at the following web address: http://www. librarytechnology.org/libwebcats/. What is especially useful about this database is its' ability to quickly create a list of potential survey participants from a large pool by allowing limits for library type and country. Once these libraries have been identified, each individual entry provides direct “links to the library's website” as well as “the geographic location, address, library-type” and Carnegie classification. From the start I planned to survey about 400 libraries, hoping for a strong response rate while maintaining a data set that I felt was still manageable for one person. While it was rather labor-intensive, a randomized subset of 403 US academic libraries was created. (The author manually counted through the alphabetically arranged list of 3037 libraries provided by lib-web-cats selecting each 8th entry for inclusion in this study.) Once this second, shorter list was created, the author could easily access each library's homepage via the online directory to double-check its' most time-sensitive information such as who the acting library director was. In most cases, I found the information and links in this database to be accurate and up-to-date. In fewer than 10 cases was a library removed from the randomized list of 403 due to being unable to locate either the library homepage or director contact information. In these cases, I adjusted my random selection technique slightly by moving down to the next entry (e.g., the 9th or 10th entry) from the complete lib-webcats list until I was able to select a library with the necessary contact information. Using the University of Washington's Catalyst system, the author was able to quickly and easily create an online questionnaire. (See Appendix 1. at the end of this article for a complete print copy of the survey instrument.) Catalyst is a suite of web tools, learning spaces and knowledge services created by and freely available to members of the UW community. One of the web tools available via Catalyst is a program called WebQ. Similar in utility to commercial programs such as SurveyMonkey or QuestionPro, WebQ allows users to develop online surveys, keep track of and collect results as well as present their findings in easy-to-analyze electronic formats. Using WebQ allowed the author to send an electronic questionnaire to each of the 403 randomly selected libraries' acting or interim directors, automatically resend second appeals for survey participation to those who did not initially respond, and easily tabulate
Figure 1 Respondants by Carnegie Classification
my results. One hundred and one (101) successfully completed surveys were returned for a 25% response rate. The break-down of these responses by institution type can be seen above in Fig. 1. This survey was designed with two primary criteria in mind. First, the author wanted to intentionally keep the questionnaire short. It was hoped that a concise format might encourage a more successful response rate amongst busy library directors. Yet, after resending the survey to non-respondents twice and extending the ending date several times, eventually it seemed 25% was as good as it was going to get. The second survey criterion was the inclusion of several open-ended questions which encouraged lengthier free-text responses. The author hoped that by providing ample space for library directors to voice their experiences and opinions, any numerical data gathered through the survey would be meaningfully enriched. Therefore, of the seven queries posed by this survey, three questions included “other” as an open response option but remained primarily quantifiable. (Example: Does your institution offer sabbatical leaves to librarians?) The other four were intentionally phrased as open-ended questions in order to illicit distinctive textual responses. (Example: In your opinion, what kind of overall effect has use (or non-use) of the institutional sabbatical leave program had on your library?).
“According to this survey, just over half (53 or 52%) of responding library directors report that their institutions offer sabbatical leaves to librarians.”
An additional twelve respondents either said that their institution offered librarians some type of leave variant or that they were unclear about the leave policies which applied specifically to librarians. The following respondent's comment was representative, “there is no specific prohibition against it, but it is unclear if a request for a sabbatical would be approved by the faculty committee or college administration.” Other participants noted that sabbatical leaves could be provided “on (the) whim” or “at the discretion” of administrative personnel outside of the library. When each of the 101 library directors was asked if sabbatical leaves provided for librarians at their institution were considered equivalent to those offered to teaching faculty, 51 or 50% replied that they were, while just under a third (29 respondents) said that sabbatical leave options were not the same (Fig. 3). Of the 16% who answered “other” in response to this question, 7 individuals indicated that their institution provided leave alternatives either in addition to or as a substitution for librarian sabbatical leaves. One such respondent wrote that sabbatical leaves “could be the same or could be abbreviated;” another noted that “in addition to offering librarians the same sabbaticals as faculty,” librarians might also choose to complete a
Figure 2 Does Your Institution Offer Sabbatical Leaves to Librarians?
FINDINGS According to this survey, just over half (53 or 52%) of responding library directors report that their institutions offer sabbatical leaves to librarians (Fig. 2). March 2009 155
Figure 3 At Your Institution, Are Sabbatical Leaves for Librarians Equivalent to Those Taken by Teaching Faculty?
“summer sabbatical dedicated to a specific project.” The remaining 9 “other” responses reiterated the fact that their institution did not offer sabbaticals to librarians. A variety of reasons were cited, such as “librarians are considered administrative,” “it could only happen if there was money in the budget to pay for a replacement” or that while it was “theoretically” possible for a librarian to take a sabbatical, “it has never happened.” Survey respondents were also asked how many librarians from their institutions had actually applied for, been granted and ultimately completed a sabbatical leave during the past five years. Of the 53 librarians who responded “yes” when asked whether or not their institution offered sabbatical leaves to librarians, 26 or 49% indicated that no librarians had completed a sabbatical during the past five years (Fig. 4). Almost a third of these libraries reported having only one librarian who had taken a sabbatical in the past five years and only 19% (10 libraries) had at least two or more librarians on sabbatical. The responses to these quantitative questions indicate that there has been little change in librarian sabbatical leave provision and participation over time.
Figure 4 In the Last Five Years, How Many Librarians have Completed a Sabbatical Leave from Your Institution?
156 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Smith's 1982 study reported that only 18% of her 543 surveyed librarians had taken a sabbatical, in part because 14 of the 34 libraries where these individuals worked (41%) either had no sabbatical leave policy, or if such a policy was in existence there was “little precedent for implementing it.”58 In 1997, a Clip Note study done by Virginia Vesper and Gloria Kelley showed some improvement in institutional support for librarian sabbaticals as 59% of 155 respondents claimed librarians were sabbatical-eligible. Just over half (51%) of these sabbatical options were reported as being equivalent in length to those of teaching faculty. Additionally, 73% of 121 respondents in this study also claimed that librarians operated under similar scholarship expectations as their teaching colleagues.59 Gaskell and Morrill's 2001 study found that 56% of 123 survey participants reported librarians were eligible to take a sabbatical which typically lasted six months or less. In 49% of these cases, respondents reported that sabbaticals had been on par to those of the teaching faculty and as such were “regulated by institutional policies” rather than libraryspecific policies.60 Regrettably, neither of these two Clip Note studies collected data concerning the number of librarians who had actually been awarded and taken a sabbatical leave. Finally, Fox's recent examination of scholarship engagement found similar professional leave trends. According to this study, “Seventy-five percent of the scholarship survey participants reported that librarians at their university were eligible for sabbatical leave;” and yet, fewer “than a quarter (21%) … participated in any particular type of leave.”61 The current study shows that of the 101 institutions represented, just over half (53 libraries) provide sabbatical leave options to their librarians. The graph below illustrates the total number of librarians who completed a sabbatical leave during the past five years at these institutions by Carnegie type (Fig. 5). Of the 53 respondents representing institutions where sabbaticals were unequivocally offered to librarians, 27 individuals reported having actually awarded 44 librarians (some of whom were obviously employed by the same institution) a sabbatical leave. This means that librarians at just over half of the institutions (51%) where sabbaticals are made available actually take them. When examined in regard to the larger questionnaire sample (101 libraries) the result is
Figure 5 Number of Librarian Sabbaticals over Past Five Years by Carnegie Type
that librarians at only 27% of the surveyed libraries were able to take advantage of a sabbatical, only a 9% increase over Smith's 1982 finding.
“Yet throughout our profession over the years, less than a third of all academic librarians may have actually benefitted from an important and "valuable way for employees to reduce stress, avoid burnout, and return to work refreshed and revitalized”
and could therefore serve as a starting place for a future ethnographer's more interpretive work. Causes for Sabbatical Leave Discrepancies Librarian Status According to this survey, the variation between teaching faculty and librarian sabbatical leaves often results from the indeterminate or idiosyncratic status of academic librarians at individual institutions. As one respondent explained Even though I have faculty status, it is without rank. Therefore I do not fit into any level (instructor, assistant, associate or full professor). I am not eligible for a sabbatical. The two other professional librarians are listed as staff and therefore are not eligible to apply for a sabbatical.
Another wrote In summary, librarian sabbatical leave numbers have remained relatively consistent over the years. Roughly half of us working in academic libraries appear to be eligible for institutional sabbatical leave programs. About half of us regularly report that such leaves are equivalent to those being offered to our faculty teaching colleagues. Yet throughout our profession over the years, less than a third of all academic librarians may have actually benefited from an important and “valuable way for employees to reduce stress, avoid burnout, and return to work refreshed and revitalized.”62
DISCUSSION Up until now, this article has focused on presenting the numerical data – quantitative findings – generated by an admittedly short survey instrument. The remainder highlights several common themes which emerged from the textual responses to a handful of open-ended questions. These questions were intentionally written in order to elicit a more multifaceted description of how members of the library profession have thought about and wrestled with issues related to sabbatical leave policies (or a lack thereof) at their institutions. A few cautionary words about the methodology used in this portion of the study. In no way does this author claim to be prepared to provide the kind of “thick description” utilized by many practiced social scientists today.63 Therefore, this article does run the risk of being read by some as a merely superficial or “thin” examination of the social contexts in which sabbatical leave policies do or do not exist in academic libraries. Yet, as the author began to consider responses to the openended questions, several common themes immediately began to stand out. None of the responses highlighted below exists in a vacuum. Each quotation is representative of an issue, idea or thought that at least two or more survey respondents echoed. As a result, it is hoped that this study might at least serve as the beginning of future, more detailed examinations of the following commonly noted concerns. Additionally, while this study may not exactly present the “rich, robust, comprehensive and well-developed”64 account called for by more experienced ethnologists, it does offer some basic triangulation of the quantitative findings related above
Librarians have faculty status but are treated as professional academic support staff. We submit annual self reports as the full-time teaching faculty do. After seven years of service we can apply for a sabbatical leave which can be taken in several smaller increments of time to support attendance and participation in professional conferences, etc., but we can not apply to be gone for a full semester or a full year.
Still another respondent noted that librarians at her/ his institution enjoy the nebulous distinction of “enhanced status.” As a result, they may take part in “a Development Leave program for Librarians/Curators” that is “administered separately from the Faculty Development Leave program.” However, academic librarians at this institution do not have tenure and as per the requirements of their separate leave program, can only request sabbaticals of 7 or 14 weeks in duration. Several survey participants reported that librarians at their campuses held a variety of alternatives to full faculty status, including the person who noted that only the library director was considered a faculty member. Unfortunately, even this lucky director held a position that was “really a faculty/staff hybrid without goodies like sabbaticals.” As one respondent bluntly summed it up, at institutions where the academic status of librarians remains problematic, they are often “not considered faculty and therefore are not entitled to any sabbatical.” Lack of Funding In addition to their often atypical status on campus, another cause for the dissimilarities between librarian and teaching faculty sabbatical options likely has to do with a lack of institutional funding. While comments about the overall financial health of individual institutions were rare, there were a number of survey respondents who highlighted the serious financial challenges librarian sabbatical participation could create for their libraries. Several respondents noted that sabbaticals taken by librarians had to be “funded by the library as opposed to by the administration.” One individual went on to explain that offering sabbaticals to librarians had been especially “difficult for the library” because “we must pay for the sabbatical out of the library budget and distribute the librarian's duties as March 2009 157
best we can during the leave.” Another person who also noted that at his/her institution librarian leaves needed to “coincide with summer, whereas faculty can go for half or full years,” observed that “little or no funding is readily available for replacement of the administrator on leave.” Finally, one survey participant declared that in order to take any kind of sabbatical-like leave, librarians at her/his institution would simply be required to “accrue vacation time.” Lack of Personnel Intermingled with respondents' comments about funding challenges were a number of responses noting personnel issues as well. Several respondents noted that when someone from their library did take a sabbatical, “the staff and other librarians have to cover more bases….” One frustrated questionnaire participant wrote, “We do not have sufficient staff to run the library let alone have someone gone for a sabbatical.” Another responded, “I'm sure it (a sabbatical leave) would be appreciated as there is a somewhat high degree of stress and low morale,” and yet, “because we are understaffed … library operations would suffer from having a staff member gone for a semester or academic year.” Finally, one discouraged respondent wrote that even though he/she could use a sabbatical to finish her/ his a doctoral dissertation, “it is not going to happen” because “the staff is too minimal to support the disruption to shared work flows and processes.” Librarian Sabbatical Leave Variances Length and Timing Whatever the reasons behind existing variations in sabbatical leave options, a number of respondents report that librarians at their institutions receive sabbaticals that are significantly shorter in duration than those of their teaching faculty colleagues. When asked to describe the difference(s) between sabbatical leaves awarded to librarians and those awarded to teaching faculty, several respondents highlighted this disparity. As one participant wrote, “Based on personal experience, two of our librarians have successfully requested and been granted ‘summer’ sabbaticals. Faculty have much longer (up to a year) options.” This respondent also noted restrictions placed on the timing of librarian sabbaticals, another leave distinction that was mentioned by numerous survey participants. Comments reporting that librarians were typically restricted to taking sabbaticals during the summer months were frequent. For example, as one person clarified, “Teaching faculty get the standard one year per seven years of teaching. Library faculty are eligible for summer sabbaticals (commencement through the Friday after Labor Day) per seven years of service.” Responses such as: “we can apply for an administrative leave, but this tends to be for a short duration (2–4 weeks), rather than an entire term;” “ours last 3 months with pay;” “most librarians have, when eligible, applied for a half year or summer sabbatical;” and “a sabbatical timed any time other than the summer would be difficult given the small number of 158 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
librarians on staff” consistently appeared throughout survey participants' responses. Sabbatical Leave Impacts Encouraging Effects When they were asked what the overall effect of librarian participation (or non-participation) in sabbatical leave programs had been on their entire library staff, survey participants provided responses that were predictably mixed. For those institutions where sabbaticals existed, the majority of respondents felt that such leaves generally had a favorable effect on the entire library. One respondent observed that “the overall effect has been very positive. Our organization gains new insights from our colleagues returning from sabbatical.” Another wrote, “I believe it is a great incentive for librarians to work at our institution,” while still another claimed that “Having the opportunity to take a sabbatical helps our librarians maintain a feeling or perception of equivalency with their discipline (sic) colleagues.” One participant even confessed that he/she considered sabbatical applicants to be “generally more serious about librarianship as a profession.” A number of responses to this question highlighted specific outcomes which were considered especially valuable. For example, one person provided the following list: “1. Morale improves. 2. Publications were generated. 3. Visits to other campuses resulted in new ideas coming back to our campus.” Another respondent reported that a “sabbatical allowed one of our librarians to complete their MLIS degree.” At one campus, a librarian was “able to take courses that supported her interests and enhanced her skills.” This particular leave was considered especially beneficial because upon her return this librarian “applied her new knowledge to her work” and “came back … revitalized.” Another survey respondent noted that one librarian at her/his institution completed a book during a sabbatical “which has added to the prestige of the library faculty.” Phrases such as “definitely worth it,” “pleased and positive,” “time for renewal” and “very grateful and rejuvenated” appear throughout the positive responses to this question. In short, as one individual wrote, in many cases offering sabbatical leaves to librarians seems to result in “Good projects, strong morale, (and promotion of the) view of librarians as classroom faculty equals.” Negative Responses However, not all of the responses concerning the impacts of librarian sabbatical leaves were positive. While in the minority, there were individuals who reported minimal if any benefits resulted from librarian sabbatical leaves at their institutions. At least three survey participants simply replied “no effect” when asked about the impacts of librarian participation in their institutional sabbatical leave program. A lengthier, somewhat more distressing response came from the following participant. It's good for my faculty's morale to be eligible for sabbaticals, but most don't feel they can afford the time away. The University's opinion of the success of our sabbaticals is very low, however,
because the last several sabbaticals have not produced the intended outcomes. I'm not sure how successful we will be in (the) future in advancing sabbatical requests for that reason — a classic case of what a few fail to do negatively impacting all who follow. What a shame.
Still another person commented on the issue of inadequate staff replacement options and the impact this challenge has on sabbatical participants who may be solely responsible for unique library functions.
Another survey participant wrote, “My predecessor as library director took a sabbatical during his 35 (year) tenure at the college. He intended to spend the time finishing up his PhD. However, I don't think he ever completed that degree.” One individual further explained that he/she felt that librarian sabbaticals had “little effect,” because “there has not been an emphasis on applying the information gained in (sic) the sabbatical to the institution,” while another respondent simply wrote, “not much has come out of it.” Fortunately, though there were negative responses to this question, fewer critical comments had to do with librarians who may not have accomplished their sabbatical outcomes. The larger issue seemed to be poor participation in and/or awareness of institutional sabbatical leave options. For example, the following grumpy response was notable: “No effect. One librarian got a leave of absence about 8 years ago and we got by (emphasis added).” Another survey participant observed that “No librarian has requested a sabbatical leave during my tenure as University Librarian which is more than ten years” and yet another reported that “none of the library staff has ever applied for a sabbatical.” One participant noted that at his/her previous institution “only one librarian ever took (a sabbatical).” And at yet another institution, taking a sabbatical was apparently not on the librarians' “radar (as the) last individual who took one was well over 15 years ago!”
It is difficult to find replacements for librarians in certain specialties–e.g., director, systems administration – and so these people tend to be “on call” to some extent when they are (supposed to be) gone. More intentional effort to find temporary librarians would improve the quality of the sabbatical experience for these people.
Suggestions for Improvement When asked what their institution could do to enhance its' sabbatical leave program for librarians, survey participants from places where these leaves are unavailable provided predictably droll comments such as: “create one,” “actually have one,” “recommend that there be one,” or as one enthusiastically straightforward respondent exclaimed, “give us sabbaticals!” However, for respondents employed at academic institutions where sabbaticals were awarded to librarians, the question inspired a number of interesting suggestions for improving the leave experience for individual applicants and/or the larger organization. For example, one participant wrote, I think the committee that approves sabbatical leaves for all faculty could better support their colleagues and the institution by not being so focused on “traditional” sabbatical leave projects such as taking classes, conducting research, or writing for publication. Greater focus on non-traditional projects could substantially enrich the teaching and learning environment.
Another respondent wrote about the need to take on issues related to the status of librarians on campus. We need to come to an agreement with the college administration about several details of the appointment of librarians as faculty. There is no clear path to promotion. And while our access to faculty development funds is well established, sabbaticals are unknown territory.
Issues related to inadequate funding and the lack of alternate staffing options were especially common targets for suggested improvement amongst survey respondents. As one person advised, the money needed to cover vacancies due to any sabbatical leave should be provided by universities “as a routine matter.” Other respondents recommended that their institution sanction and support the hiring of replacements or “adjuncts to assume workload for staff on sabbatical.” Based on the number of similar responses to this survey question, it appears that contemporary academic library budgets often simply cannot cover all of the financial and staffing challenges created by sabbatical participation. Without increased institutional support, sabbatical leave programs for librarians will likely remain impractical and in many cases, impossible. Other survey participants suggested ways for those librarians who have already benefited from taking a sabbatical to improve the communication about their experience. For example, one respondent wrote, the sabbatical leave report which is required for the campus (should) be shared and that there (should) be a meeting, or report on the leave which is shared with the entire staff of the library. It might be the focus of a meeting so as to engender a conversation on the leave topic, thereby creating a learning situation for everyone, and not just the recipient of the leave.
Another person noted how critically important it is “to show that the sabbatical contributed to the mission and research agenda of the institution,” while another participant suggested “finding ways to do collaborative research with faculty on campus or (at) other libraries.” One especially interesting suggestion came from an individual who suggested creating an institutional “mentor for developing sabbatical proposals” as a means of more actively supporting librarians who would like to apply for a leave. Finally, the responses concerning improvement of existing sabbatical leave programs included calls for increased participant accountability. A number of participants felt “Something tangible should be required upon completion of the sabbatical.” While one respondent proposed an “extensive report on sabbatical activities when the person returns,” another took a rewards-based approach suggesting that the institution provide increased incentives “by way of rank, recognition, or responsibility at the completion of the sabbatical.” Even survey participants at academic institutions where librarian sabbaticals are reasonably well supported recognized that the inclusion of measurable March 2009 159
goals and participant accountability is crucial to the continued success of their leave program. As one librarian put it: Enhancements need to come from within. My faculty need to understand that research also precedes an application, and that real outcomes (publications, programs, etc.) are required. The days of the “paid vacation” are gone. Accountability is key now.
Consequently, even the lucky 27% of academic librarians who do complete a traditional sabbatical leave should (and likely would) not expect a leave free from institutionally designated measurable goals and outcomes.
“...the sabbatical leave inequities identified by this brief questionnaire are the result of stubborn obstacles that have been challenging the library profession for decades.”
CONCLUSION There is an inherent danger for overgeneralization resolutely lurking behind the analysis of data gathered from abridged studies such as this. Certainly, drawing wide-ranging, incontrovertible conclusions from this single study would be imprudent at best. And yet, the issues described by survey participants in this study are hardly new or earth-shattering. In fact, the sabbatical leave inequities identified by this brief questionnaire are the result of stubborn obstacles that have been challenging the library profession for decades. Simply put, when sabbatical disparities exist at institutions of higher education, such inconsistencies are often the result of a lack of funding, personnel shortages and ongoing questions concerning the status of academic librarians. Therefore, what may actually be most worth considering when reading a study such as this, is the renewed emphasis on the personal and professional unhappiness such long-standing challenges appear to have had on certain members of our profession.65–68 In fact, what may be most surprising about the comments generated by this questionnaire is not that such conditions remain, but rather that none of these participants mention the need for taking a break from a profession viewed by some with “increasing dissatisfaction and restlessness”69 and by others as needing “better compensation,” improved “supervision and administration, more respect” and daily job functions that are less repetitive and dull.70 It is especially challenging to grapple with the suggestion made by numerous survey respondents (and indeed, this author) that academic librarians ought to increase the rigor of, improve communications about, and take greater accountability for their sabbatical leaves as a means of improving such professional absences' institutional value. Such suggestions are 160 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
complicated by the fact that a significant number of academic librarians remain ineligible for any type of leave whatsoever. Based on these complexities and the degree to which stress and burnout have been documented within the profession,71–73 asking librarians to further expand upon their work-related responsibilities while on sabbatical leave may initially seem unreasonable. Yet, the issue isn't just that we librarians ought to get out more (though I would argue that we do). It is also that those of us who manage to get out need to articulate the value of our experiences with more clarity and precision to our administrators and colleagues. We need to demonstrate why and how it is that getting out for a while has improved our job performance and increased our value as an employee and professional librarian. For example, if taking a sabbatical ameliorates some of the perhaps less positive attributes of the library profession,74 then we might explore why and how such leaves could prove to be vitally important tools in the retention of skilled academic librarians. Rather than writing a personal narrative about how much you enjoyed your time on sabbatical, another suggestion might involve digging into the research on stress and burnout in libraries. Ask how a study (even a small one such as this) might measure the specific ways in which your sabbatical helped you identify and/or beat individual burnout indicators. For those of us fortunate enough to be able to take a sabbatical, the point of this article is not to suck all of the joy and life out of the experience. Rather this study provides one example of how a librarian might create a manageable, research-based project that more closely marries academic rigor to personal experience — if at only a very basic level. The library profession needs to encourage even more creative thinking about the sabbatical experience and to hear a great deal more about successful sabbatical experiences. If only to make the case that we really do need to get out more.
APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.acalib. 2009.01.009.
NOTES
AND
REFERENCES
1. Justine Alsop, “Losing Our Minds,” C & RL News 66 (Dec. 2005): 790–791, 838. 2. Ibid., p. 791. 3. David Fox, “Finding Time for Scholarship: A Survey of Canadian Research University Librarians,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 7 (2007): 454. 4. Ibid., pp. 460, 461. 5. Ibid., p. 461. 6. Sally Jo Reynolds, “Sabbatical: The Pause That Refreshes,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 16 (May 1990): 90–93. 7. Seymour B. Sarason, The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990), p. 140. 8. Andrew E. Carr & Thomas Li-Ping Tang, “Sabbaticals and Employee Motivation: Benefits, Concerns, and Implications,” Journal of Education for Business 80 (Jan.–Feb. 2005): 160–164.
9. Haim H. Gaziel, “Sabbatical Leave, Job Burnout and Turnover Intentions among Teachers,” International Journal of Lifelong Education 14 (July–August 1995): 331–338. 10. Marlis Hubbard, “Exploring the Sabbatical or Other Leave as a Means of Energizing a Career,” Library Trends 50 (Spring 2002): 603–613. 11. Alsop, p. 790. 12. Carolyn Gaskell & Allen S. Morrill, Travel, Sabbatical, and Study Leave Policies in College Libraries: CLIP Note #30 (Chicago: College Libraries Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, 2001), pp.13 & 34. 13. Hubbard, p. 612. 14. Karen F. Smith, “The Sabbatical Option: Who Exercises It?” in Options for the 80s: Proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, edited by Michael D. Kathman & Virgil F. Massman (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1982), p. 461. 15. Carl H. Boening & Michael T. Miller, Research and Literature on the Sabbatical Leave: A Review (College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, 1997, ED 414777), p. 14. 16. Celina M. Sima, “The Role and Benefits of the Sabbatical Leave in Faculty Development and Satisfaction,” New Directions for Institutional Research 105 (Spring 2000): 74. 17. Carr & Tang, pp. 160–164. 18. Smith, pp. 451–461. 19. Sima, pp. 67–75. 20. Gaskell & Morrill, pp. 1–36. 21. Smith, p. 460. 22. Ibid. 23. Boening & Miller, pp. 1–16. 24. Ibid., p. 5. 25. Gaskell & Morrill, pp. 39–110. 26. Ibid., p. 13. 27. Smith, p. 460. 28. Virginia Vesper & Gloria Kelley, Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic Librarians: CLIP Note #26 (Chicago: College Libraries Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, 1997): 23–25. 29. Reynolds, pp. 90–93. 30. Eloise May, “How I Got a Life,” American Libraries 29 (Oct. 1998): 59–61. 31. Robert Genovese, “Highways, Buildings, and Mountains: Driving My Way through a Sabbatical,” Law Library Journal 94 (Spring 2002): 343–352. 32. Robert Genovese, “Taking Care of Business: Further Along the Sabbatical Trail,” Law Library Journal 95 (Summer 2003): 475–481. 33. Hubbard, pp. 603–613. 34. Sima, pp. 67–75. 35. Carr & Tang, pp. 160–164. 36. Staci L. Beavers, “Re-Gaining the Student's Perspective in the Classroom: A Sabbatical Adventure,” PS: Political Science & Politics 38 (Oct. 2005): 769–770. 37. Daniel Y.C. Fung, “Editor's Corner: Academic Sabbatical Leave,” Journal of Rapid Methods & Automation in Microbiology 14 (June 2006): iv–v. 38. May, p. 59. 39. Genovese, “Taking Care of Business,” p. 481. 40. Hubbard, p. 612. 41. Herbert White, “The Role of Reference Service in the Mission of the Academic Library,” in Reference Service: A Perspective, edited by Sul H. Lee (Ann Arbor, MI: The Pierian Press, 1983), p. 23. 42. Ibid., p. 20. 43. Sima, p. 72.
44. David P. Fisher, “Are Librarians Burning Out?,” Journal of Librarianship 22 (Oct. 1990): 216–235. 45. Charles D. Patterson & Donna W. Howell, “Library User Education: Assessing the Attitudes of Those Who Teach,” RQ 29 (Summer 1990): 513–523. 46. Janette S. Caputo, Stress and Burnout in Library Service (Phoenix: Oryx, 1991). 47. Karen A. Becker, “The Characteristics of Bibliographic Instruction in Relation to the Causes and Symptoms of Burnout,” RQ 32 (Spring 1993): 346–357. 48. Mary Ann Affleck, “Burnout among Bibliographic Instruction Librarians,” LISR 18 (1996): 165–183. 49. Deborah F. Sheesley, “Burnout and the Academic Teaching Librarian: An Examination of the Problem and Suggested Solutions,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 27 (2001): 447–451. 50. Rebecca Adler, “The Librarian in the Trench: The Workaday Impact of Information Literacy,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 3 (2003): 447–458. 51. Hasan Siamian and others, “Stress and Burnout in Libraries & Information Centers,” in Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, ed. C. Khoo, D. Singh & A. S. Chaudhry (Singapore: School of Communication & Information, Nanyang Technological University, 2006): 263–268. 52. Caputo, pp. 58–84. 53. Patterson & Howell, p. 521. 54. Becker, p. 355. 55. Affleck, p. 180. 56. Siamian & others, p. 267. 57. Jeff Luzius & Allyson Ard, “Leaving the Academic Library,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (Nov. 2006): 593–598. 58. Smith, pp. 452 & 460. 59. Virginia Vesper & Gloria Kelley, Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic Librarians: CLIP Note #26 (Chicago: College Libraries Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, 1997): 23–24. 60. Gaskell & Morrill, pp. 13 & 34. 61. Fox, pp. 459. 62. Carr & Tang, p. 164. 63. Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 3–30. 64. Deborah Cohen & Benjamin Crabtree, “Triangulation.” Online. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. (July 2006) Available: http://qualres.com/HomeTria-3692. html (April 11, 2008). 65. Jean M. Holcomb, “Battling Burnout,” Law Library Journal 99 (Summer 2007): 669–679. 66. Luzius & Ard, pp. 593–598. 67. Michael Gorman, “Information Overload and Stress: The Ailments of Modern Living” in The Enduring Library: Technology, Tradition, and the Quest for Balance (Chicago: American Library Association, 2003), pp. 122–133. 68. Adler, pp. 447–458. 69. Susanne Markgren, Thad Dickinson, Anne Leonard, & Kim Vassiliadis, “The Five-Year Itch: Are Librarians Losing Their Most Valuable Resources?,” Library Administration & Management 21 (Spring 2007): 76. 70. Luzius & Ard, p.597. For a great deal more on this topic, see also: “Annoyed Librarian.” Online. (N.D.) Available: http://annoyedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ (April 11, 2008). 71. Affleck, pp. 172–178. 72. Becker, pp. 346–357. 73. Patterson & Howell, pp. 513–523. 74. Luzius and Ard, p. 596.
March 2009 161
This article continues the conversation about librarian sabbatical participation. Analyses are based on quantitative and qualitative data gathered using an online questionnaire. While numerical results show little change in sabbatical participation over time, respondents had much to say about this topic. The author highlights common themes using various textual responses.
INTRODUCTION In “Losing Our Minds,” an insightful editorial written three years ago, Justine Alsop considers the speed with which technology has infiltrated our lives and added layers of complexity to some of our most basic societal interchanges. Alsop cogently describes her concerns about the consequences of such rapid technological expansion, highlighting her unease with the effect technology has had on our capacity for deep reading and contemplation, skills that she believes are no longer encouraged in an “increasingly rushed society.”1 Alsop's final message is particularly salient: As humans, a bit of stress can be a good thing — we need to be challenged and engaged; but, in the same (sic), we have a vital need for quiet reflection, the opportunity to make sense of what we take in through our senses and through our research.2
Molly R. Flaspohler, Carl B. Ylvisaker Library, Concordia College, Moorhead, MN, USA
Cautionary appeals such as Alsop's are certainly not new, nor by any means are they limited to being made by members of the library profession. However, such admonitions have gained importance within the literature of library science because of their likely connection to studies on stress and burnout in libraries. One example of research in this vein is David Fox's recent survey of Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL). In his study, Fox finds that amongst librarian respondents “time conflict is a major obstacle to greater participation in scholarly activity.”3 In addition to reporting a work week that on average extends well beyond 40 h/week, these librarians maintain that there are “significant demands” and challenges related to “balancing professional practice, scholarship, and (the) service elements” of their profession.4 While Fox's study recognizes that librarianship is certainly not the only profession struggling with challenges brought about by burgeoning technological advances and an increasingly fast-paced work environment, he does seem to agree with the idea that librarians ought to get out more as he affirms their need to “take advantage of their eligibility for sabbatical leave.”5 Is it really possible that librarians still
152 The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 35, Number 2, pages 152–161
need to be reminded to take a break once and a while? Perhaps… In an article written in 1990 Sally Jo Reynolds noted her surprise at learning that during the ten years prior, an evaluative body of literature that systematically explored the sabbatical leave experience never really developed.6 That same year Seymour B. Sarason referred to what he termed a persistent “silence about sabbaticals”7 within the context of his book on educational reform. Almost twenty years later, though there is some evidence showing an increase in the usage of sabbatical-type leaves by occupations outside of higher education,8–10 studies that empirically examine sabbatical leave systems and/or their outcomes remain in surprisingly short supply.
“Is it really possible that librarians still need to be reminded to take a break once and a while?” For those academic librarians who report their ineligibility for or their inability to take even the most abbreviated of sabbaticals, procuring a respite from the deleterious effects that “stress, technology, and multitasking are having on our souls and on our collective intellect”11 remains a particularly frustrating and discouraging characteristic of the profession. As recently as 2001, Carolyn Gaskell and Allen S. Morril found that librarians at just over half of the institutions they surveyed were eligible to take a sabbatical leave.12 While many authors may agree with Marlis Hubbard who believes “Creating sabbaticals that are truly invigorating is … crucial to one's well being,”13 as Karen F. Smith notes, even at institutions where sabbatical leaves are available, only the most “avid” librarians seem to apply.14 It appears then that the need for rigorous qualitative and quantitative examinations into the value of, and explicit relationship between, sabbatical leave practices and the academic institutions which grant them persists.15–17 The overarching goal of this article is to return to what has been a somewhat discontinuous conversation about academic librarian sabbatical leave participation. The paper's more explicit analyses are based on data gathered from a brief online survey of randomly selected academic libraries of all sizes and types. While this survey's resulting numerical data shows little change in actual participation over time,18–20 it also uncovers questionnaire respondents who had a great deal to say about this topic. Accordingly, the following article is largely written to give voice to a variety of survey respondents' interesting responses to open-ended survey questions concerning their own institutional sabbatical leave opportunities.
LITERATURE REVIEW The body of research surrounding sabbatical leave practices is remarkably small, particularly when narrowed to studies focused solely on librarianship. Still,
Smith's 1979 work provides an early look into the sabbatical practices of 543 tenured librarians from large academic libraries. According to her data, librarians who took advantage of sabbatical leaves during this period were, “active in the profession, (had) scholarly inclinations, and (had) been entrusted with increased responsibility in their libraries.”21 Yet, Smith's study also showed that there were many librarians who demonstrated these characteristics even though they had never taken a sabbatical leave.22 Ultimately, this study found that for a variety of reasons, (institutional, administrative and personal) 65% of those librarians who reported being eligible for sabbatical leaves had never actually taken one. Whatever their reasons for not taking advantage of sabbatical leaves, librarians seem to have had little enthusiasm for researching and writing about them either. In 1997 Carl H. Boening and Michael T. Miller conducted a review and analysis of the existing work concerning college faculty sabbatical leave practice.23 Of the 16 articles they reference, only one is written by someone from within the library profession. Additionally, these authors found that while narratives touting the restorative benefits of sabbaticals have been published, a great deal of work still needs to be done to systematically examine “the processes and products of sabbaticals, particularly outcomes of sabbaticals and the benefits to institutions that leaves of this nature may produce.”24 In 2001 Gaskell and Morril assembled a number of travel, sabbatical, and study leave policies for the Association of College and Research Libraries' CLIP Note series. 25 In addition to providing copies of individual policies, this publication also shared the results of a survey completed by individuals at 127 public and private academic libraries. Although only two of Gaskell and Morril's questions explicitly asked about sabbatical leave practices, they concluded that such leaves were “available to librarians at 56% of the institutions surveyed” and handled in “a wide variety” of ways.26 This finding compares to Smith's research as 41% of her questionnaire respondents reported having either no sabbatical option or having never implemented one.27 Additionally, Virginia Vesper and Gloria Kelley (1997) reported that 59% of their own 155 CLIP Note survey respondents claimed sabbatical leave eligibility.28 Unfortunately, though both CLIP studies asked respondents to comment on institutional sabbatical eligibility, neither report followed up by asking participants to indicate the number of librarians who had actually taken advantage of this option. What remains of the literature on librarian sabbatical leave practice can be divided into one of two categories: the personal narrative29–32 or the descriptive/informative review article.33 These methodological approaches tend also to prevail even when the search is extended beyond librarianship into related professions such as education.34–37 While it might be pleasant to read the informal account of a librarian who took an unpaid sabbatical leave after becoming stuck in the “ebb tide on give-a-hoot beach,” 38 or to learn that sabbaticals provide “an opening through which to take measure March 2009 153
of things,”39 or to discover that a “sabbatical in its ideal form leaves professionals delightfully satisfied,”40 it is also very difficult to imagine relying upon such narratives to provide compelling arguments in favor of granting sabbatical leaves to librarians. Regrettably, this kind of writing is simply not likely to convince those college administrators, “who really have no plans or expectations for the library except the hope that it will stay within the allocated budget and that the faculty and the students … will not complain too strenuously about it.”41 It seems therefore, that literature examining librarian sabbatical leave participation could benefit from increased consideration and heightened rigor.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS It is now time to acknowledge that this author is one of the fortunate few within the library profession to currently be enjoying a year-long sabbatical. Yet, my own experience also demonstrates that such “acceptance into full faculty collegiality is not generally extended.”42 For example, I am keenly aware of the fact that one of my library faculty colleagues recently had a sabbatical leave application denied because it was not considered academic enough. Although her leave proposal included completion of a thesis finalizing her second Master's degree in addition to taking part in hours of long-distance training in preparation for our library's migration to a new online system, the nonlibrarian faculty members of my colleague's leave committee did not view such training as sabbaticalworthy. Disappointingly, this librarian's application was the only leave proposal to be denied by the institution at the time, despite the fact that complex library migrations represent exactly the kind of “demand for continuous cutting-edge knowledge acquisition, development, and dissemination (that) is not typical of the vast majority of careers.”43 Finally, after rewriting and resubmitting her proposal the following semester, this librarian was still asked to segment her single-semester leave into smaller pieces over time — a request that is rarely, if ever, made of teaching faculty. Lest I leave readers with the wrong impression, let me be clear that my institution is a good place for librarians to work. With the exception of tenure and eligibility for one or two academic committees, librarians at my college have full faculty status. Our leadership is strong and the staff is highly skilled and serviceoriented. We work with an exceptional teaching faculty, a reasonably engaged student body and the librarians at my institution look forward to lengthy, fulfilling careers. Nevertheless, involvement in the institutional sabbatical leave program remains inconsistent, due in part to the difficulties (perceived and real) librarians face explaining the nature of our academic work to nonlibrarian colleagues. Therefore, as I was preparing my own sabbatical leave application I began to wonder if similar challenges exist at other academic institutions and whether or not less-than-enthusiastic participation in sabbatical leave programs (where available) is common. How widespread are sabbatical-challenge stories such as my 154 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
colleague's? In light of the noteworthy spate of research on stress and burnout in libraries,44–51 why are so many librarians not taking sabbatical leaves? As these authors have shown, librarians do suffer job-dissatisfaction and burnout.52–57 Shouldn't we be making a more determined effort to get out a bit more?
METHODOLOGY Because it was quite easy to use and provided a wealth of reasonably up-to-date information, the author chose to use a free online directory called “lib-web-cats” (library web sites and catalogs). Though most of the entries are libraries located in North America, the site bills itself as a “directory of libraries worldwide” and is located at the following web address: http://www. librarytechnology.org/libwebcats/. What is especially useful about this database is its' ability to quickly create a list of potential survey participants from a large pool by allowing limits for library type and country. Once these libraries have been identified, each individual entry provides direct “links to the library's website” as well as “the geographic location, address, library-type” and Carnegie classification. From the start I planned to survey about 400 libraries, hoping for a strong response rate while maintaining a data set that I felt was still manageable for one person. While it was rather labor-intensive, a randomized subset of 403 US academic libraries was created. (The author manually counted through the alphabetically arranged list of 3037 libraries provided by lib-web-cats selecting each 8th entry for inclusion in this study.) Once this second, shorter list was created, the author could easily access each library's homepage via the online directory to double-check its' most time-sensitive information such as who the acting library director was. In most cases, I found the information and links in this database to be accurate and up-to-date. In fewer than 10 cases was a library removed from the randomized list of 403 due to being unable to locate either the library homepage or director contact information. In these cases, I adjusted my random selection technique slightly by moving down to the next entry (e.g., the 9th or 10th entry) from the complete lib-webcats list until I was able to select a library with the necessary contact information. Using the University of Washington's Catalyst system, the author was able to quickly and easily create an online questionnaire. (See Appendix 1. at the end of this article for a complete print copy of the survey instrument.) Catalyst is a suite of web tools, learning spaces and knowledge services created by and freely available to members of the UW community. One of the web tools available via Catalyst is a program called WebQ. Similar in utility to commercial programs such as SurveyMonkey or QuestionPro, WebQ allows users to develop online surveys, keep track of and collect results as well as present their findings in easy-to-analyze electronic formats. Using WebQ allowed the author to send an electronic questionnaire to each of the 403 randomly selected libraries' acting or interim directors, automatically resend second appeals for survey participation to those who did not initially respond, and easily tabulate
Figure 1 Respondants by Carnegie Classification
my results. One hundred and one (101) successfully completed surveys were returned for a 25% response rate. The break-down of these responses by institution type can be seen above in Fig. 1. This survey was designed with two primary criteria in mind. First, the author wanted to intentionally keep the questionnaire short. It was hoped that a concise format might encourage a more successful response rate amongst busy library directors. Yet, after resending the survey to non-respondents twice and extending the ending date several times, eventually it seemed 25% was as good as it was going to get. The second survey criterion was the inclusion of several open-ended questions which encouraged lengthier free-text responses. The author hoped that by providing ample space for library directors to voice their experiences and opinions, any numerical data gathered through the survey would be meaningfully enriched. Therefore, of the seven queries posed by this survey, three questions included “other” as an open response option but remained primarily quantifiable. (Example: Does your institution offer sabbatical leaves to librarians?) The other four were intentionally phrased as open-ended questions in order to illicit distinctive textual responses. (Example: In your opinion, what kind of overall effect has use (or non-use) of the institutional sabbatical leave program had on your library?).
“According to this survey, just over half (53 or 52%) of responding library directors report that their institutions offer sabbatical leaves to librarians.”
An additional twelve respondents either said that their institution offered librarians some type of leave variant or that they were unclear about the leave policies which applied specifically to librarians. The following respondent's comment was representative, “there is no specific prohibition against it, but it is unclear if a request for a sabbatical would be approved by the faculty committee or college administration.” Other participants noted that sabbatical leaves could be provided “on (the) whim” or “at the discretion” of administrative personnel outside of the library. When each of the 101 library directors was asked if sabbatical leaves provided for librarians at their institution were considered equivalent to those offered to teaching faculty, 51 or 50% replied that they were, while just under a third (29 respondents) said that sabbatical leave options were not the same (Fig. 3). Of the 16% who answered “other” in response to this question, 7 individuals indicated that their institution provided leave alternatives either in addition to or as a substitution for librarian sabbatical leaves. One such respondent wrote that sabbatical leaves “could be the same or could be abbreviated;” another noted that “in addition to offering librarians the same sabbaticals as faculty,” librarians might also choose to complete a
Figure 2 Does Your Institution Offer Sabbatical Leaves to Librarians?
FINDINGS According to this survey, just over half (53 or 52%) of responding library directors report that their institutions offer sabbatical leaves to librarians (Fig. 2). March 2009 155
Figure 3 At Your Institution, Are Sabbatical Leaves for Librarians Equivalent to Those Taken by Teaching Faculty?
“summer sabbatical dedicated to a specific project.” The remaining 9 “other” responses reiterated the fact that their institution did not offer sabbaticals to librarians. A variety of reasons were cited, such as “librarians are considered administrative,” “it could only happen if there was money in the budget to pay for a replacement” or that while it was “theoretically” possible for a librarian to take a sabbatical, “it has never happened.” Survey respondents were also asked how many librarians from their institutions had actually applied for, been granted and ultimately completed a sabbatical leave during the past five years. Of the 53 librarians who responded “yes” when asked whether or not their institution offered sabbatical leaves to librarians, 26 or 49% indicated that no librarians had completed a sabbatical during the past five years (Fig. 4). Almost a third of these libraries reported having only one librarian who had taken a sabbatical in the past five years and only 19% (10 libraries) had at least two or more librarians on sabbatical. The responses to these quantitative questions indicate that there has been little change in librarian sabbatical leave provision and participation over time.
Figure 4 In the Last Five Years, How Many Librarians have Completed a Sabbatical Leave from Your Institution?
156 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Smith's 1982 study reported that only 18% of her 543 surveyed librarians had taken a sabbatical, in part because 14 of the 34 libraries where these individuals worked (41%) either had no sabbatical leave policy, or if such a policy was in existence there was “little precedent for implementing it.”58 In 1997, a Clip Note study done by Virginia Vesper and Gloria Kelley showed some improvement in institutional support for librarian sabbaticals as 59% of 155 respondents claimed librarians were sabbatical-eligible. Just over half (51%) of these sabbatical options were reported as being equivalent in length to those of teaching faculty. Additionally, 73% of 121 respondents in this study also claimed that librarians operated under similar scholarship expectations as their teaching colleagues.59 Gaskell and Morrill's 2001 study found that 56% of 123 survey participants reported librarians were eligible to take a sabbatical which typically lasted six months or less. In 49% of these cases, respondents reported that sabbaticals had been on par to those of the teaching faculty and as such were “regulated by institutional policies” rather than libraryspecific policies.60 Regrettably, neither of these two Clip Note studies collected data concerning the number of librarians who had actually been awarded and taken a sabbatical leave. Finally, Fox's recent examination of scholarship engagement found similar professional leave trends. According to this study, “Seventy-five percent of the scholarship survey participants reported that librarians at their university were eligible for sabbatical leave;” and yet, fewer “than a quarter (21%) … participated in any particular type of leave.”61 The current study shows that of the 101 institutions represented, just over half (53 libraries) provide sabbatical leave options to their librarians. The graph below illustrates the total number of librarians who completed a sabbatical leave during the past five years at these institutions by Carnegie type (Fig. 5). Of the 53 respondents representing institutions where sabbaticals were unequivocally offered to librarians, 27 individuals reported having actually awarded 44 librarians (some of whom were obviously employed by the same institution) a sabbatical leave. This means that librarians at just over half of the institutions (51%) where sabbaticals are made available actually take them. When examined in regard to the larger questionnaire sample (101 libraries) the result is
Figure 5 Number of Librarian Sabbaticals over Past Five Years by Carnegie Type
that librarians at only 27% of the surveyed libraries were able to take advantage of a sabbatical, only a 9% increase over Smith's 1982 finding.
“Yet throughout our profession over the years, less than a third of all academic librarians may have actually benefitted from an important and "valuable way for employees to reduce stress, avoid burnout, and return to work refreshed and revitalized”
and could therefore serve as a starting place for a future ethnographer's more interpretive work. Causes for Sabbatical Leave Discrepancies Librarian Status According to this survey, the variation between teaching faculty and librarian sabbatical leaves often results from the indeterminate or idiosyncratic status of academic librarians at individual institutions. As one respondent explained Even though I have faculty status, it is without rank. Therefore I do not fit into any level (instructor, assistant, associate or full professor). I am not eligible for a sabbatical. The two other professional librarians are listed as staff and therefore are not eligible to apply for a sabbatical.
Another wrote In summary, librarian sabbatical leave numbers have remained relatively consistent over the years. Roughly half of us working in academic libraries appear to be eligible for institutional sabbatical leave programs. About half of us regularly report that such leaves are equivalent to those being offered to our faculty teaching colleagues. Yet throughout our profession over the years, less than a third of all academic librarians may have actually benefited from an important and “valuable way for employees to reduce stress, avoid burnout, and return to work refreshed and revitalized.”62
DISCUSSION Up until now, this article has focused on presenting the numerical data – quantitative findings – generated by an admittedly short survey instrument. The remainder highlights several common themes which emerged from the textual responses to a handful of open-ended questions. These questions were intentionally written in order to elicit a more multifaceted description of how members of the library profession have thought about and wrestled with issues related to sabbatical leave policies (or a lack thereof) at their institutions. A few cautionary words about the methodology used in this portion of the study. In no way does this author claim to be prepared to provide the kind of “thick description” utilized by many practiced social scientists today.63 Therefore, this article does run the risk of being read by some as a merely superficial or “thin” examination of the social contexts in which sabbatical leave policies do or do not exist in academic libraries. Yet, as the author began to consider responses to the openended questions, several common themes immediately began to stand out. None of the responses highlighted below exists in a vacuum. Each quotation is representative of an issue, idea or thought that at least two or more survey respondents echoed. As a result, it is hoped that this study might at least serve as the beginning of future, more detailed examinations of the following commonly noted concerns. Additionally, while this study may not exactly present the “rich, robust, comprehensive and well-developed”64 account called for by more experienced ethnologists, it does offer some basic triangulation of the quantitative findings related above
Librarians have faculty status but are treated as professional academic support staff. We submit annual self reports as the full-time teaching faculty do. After seven years of service we can apply for a sabbatical leave which can be taken in several smaller increments of time to support attendance and participation in professional conferences, etc., but we can not apply to be gone for a full semester or a full year.
Still another respondent noted that librarians at her/ his institution enjoy the nebulous distinction of “enhanced status.” As a result, they may take part in “a Development Leave program for Librarians/Curators” that is “administered separately from the Faculty Development Leave program.” However, academic librarians at this institution do not have tenure and as per the requirements of their separate leave program, can only request sabbaticals of 7 or 14 weeks in duration. Several survey participants reported that librarians at their campuses held a variety of alternatives to full faculty status, including the person who noted that only the library director was considered a faculty member. Unfortunately, even this lucky director held a position that was “really a faculty/staff hybrid without goodies like sabbaticals.” As one respondent bluntly summed it up, at institutions where the academic status of librarians remains problematic, they are often “not considered faculty and therefore are not entitled to any sabbatical.” Lack of Funding In addition to their often atypical status on campus, another cause for the dissimilarities between librarian and teaching faculty sabbatical options likely has to do with a lack of institutional funding. While comments about the overall financial health of individual institutions were rare, there were a number of survey respondents who highlighted the serious financial challenges librarian sabbatical participation could create for their libraries. Several respondents noted that sabbaticals taken by librarians had to be “funded by the library as opposed to by the administration.” One individual went on to explain that offering sabbaticals to librarians had been especially “difficult for the library” because “we must pay for the sabbatical out of the library budget and distribute the librarian's duties as March 2009 157
best we can during the leave.” Another person who also noted that at his/her institution librarian leaves needed to “coincide with summer, whereas faculty can go for half or full years,” observed that “little or no funding is readily available for replacement of the administrator on leave.” Finally, one survey participant declared that in order to take any kind of sabbatical-like leave, librarians at her/his institution would simply be required to “accrue vacation time.” Lack of Personnel Intermingled with respondents' comments about funding challenges were a number of responses noting personnel issues as well. Several respondents noted that when someone from their library did take a sabbatical, “the staff and other librarians have to cover more bases….” One frustrated questionnaire participant wrote, “We do not have sufficient staff to run the library let alone have someone gone for a sabbatical.” Another responded, “I'm sure it (a sabbatical leave) would be appreciated as there is a somewhat high degree of stress and low morale,” and yet, “because we are understaffed … library operations would suffer from having a staff member gone for a semester or academic year.” Finally, one discouraged respondent wrote that even though he/she could use a sabbatical to finish her/ his a doctoral dissertation, “it is not going to happen” because “the staff is too minimal to support the disruption to shared work flows and processes.” Librarian Sabbatical Leave Variances Length and Timing Whatever the reasons behind existing variations in sabbatical leave options, a number of respondents report that librarians at their institutions receive sabbaticals that are significantly shorter in duration than those of their teaching faculty colleagues. When asked to describe the difference(s) between sabbatical leaves awarded to librarians and those awarded to teaching faculty, several respondents highlighted this disparity. As one participant wrote, “Based on personal experience, two of our librarians have successfully requested and been granted ‘summer’ sabbaticals. Faculty have much longer (up to a year) options.” This respondent also noted restrictions placed on the timing of librarian sabbaticals, another leave distinction that was mentioned by numerous survey participants. Comments reporting that librarians were typically restricted to taking sabbaticals during the summer months were frequent. For example, as one person clarified, “Teaching faculty get the standard one year per seven years of teaching. Library faculty are eligible for summer sabbaticals (commencement through the Friday after Labor Day) per seven years of service.” Responses such as: “we can apply for an administrative leave, but this tends to be for a short duration (2–4 weeks), rather than an entire term;” “ours last 3 months with pay;” “most librarians have, when eligible, applied for a half year or summer sabbatical;” and “a sabbatical timed any time other than the summer would be difficult given the small number of 158 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
librarians on staff” consistently appeared throughout survey participants' responses. Sabbatical Leave Impacts Encouraging Effects When they were asked what the overall effect of librarian participation (or non-participation) in sabbatical leave programs had been on their entire library staff, survey participants provided responses that were predictably mixed. For those institutions where sabbaticals existed, the majority of respondents felt that such leaves generally had a favorable effect on the entire library. One respondent observed that “the overall effect has been very positive. Our organization gains new insights from our colleagues returning from sabbatical.” Another wrote, “I believe it is a great incentive for librarians to work at our institution,” while still another claimed that “Having the opportunity to take a sabbatical helps our librarians maintain a feeling or perception of equivalency with their discipline (sic) colleagues.” One participant even confessed that he/she considered sabbatical applicants to be “generally more serious about librarianship as a profession.” A number of responses to this question highlighted specific outcomes which were considered especially valuable. For example, one person provided the following list: “1. Morale improves. 2. Publications were generated. 3. Visits to other campuses resulted in new ideas coming back to our campus.” Another respondent reported that a “sabbatical allowed one of our librarians to complete their MLIS degree.” At one campus, a librarian was “able to take courses that supported her interests and enhanced her skills.” This particular leave was considered especially beneficial because upon her return this librarian “applied her new knowledge to her work” and “came back … revitalized.” Another survey respondent noted that one librarian at her/his institution completed a book during a sabbatical “which has added to the prestige of the library faculty.” Phrases such as “definitely worth it,” “pleased and positive,” “time for renewal” and “very grateful and rejuvenated” appear throughout the positive responses to this question. In short, as one individual wrote, in many cases offering sabbatical leaves to librarians seems to result in “Good projects, strong morale, (and promotion of the) view of librarians as classroom faculty equals.” Negative Responses However, not all of the responses concerning the impacts of librarian sabbatical leaves were positive. While in the minority, there were individuals who reported minimal if any benefits resulted from librarian sabbatical leaves at their institutions. At least three survey participants simply replied “no effect” when asked about the impacts of librarian participation in their institutional sabbatical leave program. A lengthier, somewhat more distressing response came from the following participant. It's good for my faculty's morale to be eligible for sabbaticals, but most don't feel they can afford the time away. The University's opinion of the success of our sabbaticals is very low, however,
because the last several sabbaticals have not produced the intended outcomes. I'm not sure how successful we will be in (the) future in advancing sabbatical requests for that reason — a classic case of what a few fail to do negatively impacting all who follow. What a shame.
Still another person commented on the issue of inadequate staff replacement options and the impact this challenge has on sabbatical participants who may be solely responsible for unique library functions.
Another survey participant wrote, “My predecessor as library director took a sabbatical during his 35 (year) tenure at the college. He intended to spend the time finishing up his PhD. However, I don't think he ever completed that degree.” One individual further explained that he/she felt that librarian sabbaticals had “little effect,” because “there has not been an emphasis on applying the information gained in (sic) the sabbatical to the institution,” while another respondent simply wrote, “not much has come out of it.” Fortunately, though there were negative responses to this question, fewer critical comments had to do with librarians who may not have accomplished their sabbatical outcomes. The larger issue seemed to be poor participation in and/or awareness of institutional sabbatical leave options. For example, the following grumpy response was notable: “No effect. One librarian got a leave of absence about 8 years ago and we got by (emphasis added).” Another survey participant observed that “No librarian has requested a sabbatical leave during my tenure as University Librarian which is more than ten years” and yet another reported that “none of the library staff has ever applied for a sabbatical.” One participant noted that at his/her previous institution “only one librarian ever took (a sabbatical).” And at yet another institution, taking a sabbatical was apparently not on the librarians' “radar (as the) last individual who took one was well over 15 years ago!”
It is difficult to find replacements for librarians in certain specialties–e.g., director, systems administration – and so these people tend to be “on call” to some extent when they are (supposed to be) gone. More intentional effort to find temporary librarians would improve the quality of the sabbatical experience for these people.
Suggestions for Improvement When asked what their institution could do to enhance its' sabbatical leave program for librarians, survey participants from places where these leaves are unavailable provided predictably droll comments such as: “create one,” “actually have one,” “recommend that there be one,” or as one enthusiastically straightforward respondent exclaimed, “give us sabbaticals!” However, for respondents employed at academic institutions where sabbaticals were awarded to librarians, the question inspired a number of interesting suggestions for improving the leave experience for individual applicants and/or the larger organization. For example, one participant wrote, I think the committee that approves sabbatical leaves for all faculty could better support their colleagues and the institution by not being so focused on “traditional” sabbatical leave projects such as taking classes, conducting research, or writing for publication. Greater focus on non-traditional projects could substantially enrich the teaching and learning environment.
Another respondent wrote about the need to take on issues related to the status of librarians on campus. We need to come to an agreement with the college administration about several details of the appointment of librarians as faculty. There is no clear path to promotion. And while our access to faculty development funds is well established, sabbaticals are unknown territory.
Issues related to inadequate funding and the lack of alternate staffing options were especially common targets for suggested improvement amongst survey respondents. As one person advised, the money needed to cover vacancies due to any sabbatical leave should be provided by universities “as a routine matter.” Other respondents recommended that their institution sanction and support the hiring of replacements or “adjuncts to assume workload for staff on sabbatical.” Based on the number of similar responses to this survey question, it appears that contemporary academic library budgets often simply cannot cover all of the financial and staffing challenges created by sabbatical participation. Without increased institutional support, sabbatical leave programs for librarians will likely remain impractical and in many cases, impossible. Other survey participants suggested ways for those librarians who have already benefited from taking a sabbatical to improve the communication about their experience. For example, one respondent wrote, the sabbatical leave report which is required for the campus (should) be shared and that there (should) be a meeting, or report on the leave which is shared with the entire staff of the library. It might be the focus of a meeting so as to engender a conversation on the leave topic, thereby creating a learning situation for everyone, and not just the recipient of the leave.
Another person noted how critically important it is “to show that the sabbatical contributed to the mission and research agenda of the institution,” while another participant suggested “finding ways to do collaborative research with faculty on campus or (at) other libraries.” One especially interesting suggestion came from an individual who suggested creating an institutional “mentor for developing sabbatical proposals” as a means of more actively supporting librarians who would like to apply for a leave. Finally, the responses concerning improvement of existing sabbatical leave programs included calls for increased participant accountability. A number of participants felt “Something tangible should be required upon completion of the sabbatical.” While one respondent proposed an “extensive report on sabbatical activities when the person returns,” another took a rewards-based approach suggesting that the institution provide increased incentives “by way of rank, recognition, or responsibility at the completion of the sabbatical.” Even survey participants at academic institutions where librarian sabbaticals are reasonably well supported recognized that the inclusion of measurable March 2009 159
goals and participant accountability is crucial to the continued success of their leave program. As one librarian put it: Enhancements need to come from within. My faculty need to understand that research also precedes an application, and that real outcomes (publications, programs, etc.) are required. The days of the “paid vacation” are gone. Accountability is key now.
Consequently, even the lucky 27% of academic librarians who do complete a traditional sabbatical leave should (and likely would) not expect a leave free from institutionally designated measurable goals and outcomes.
“...the sabbatical leave inequities identified by this brief questionnaire are the result of stubborn obstacles that have been challenging the library profession for decades.”
CONCLUSION There is an inherent danger for overgeneralization resolutely lurking behind the analysis of data gathered from abridged studies such as this. Certainly, drawing wide-ranging, incontrovertible conclusions from this single study would be imprudent at best. And yet, the issues described by survey participants in this study are hardly new or earth-shattering. In fact, the sabbatical leave inequities identified by this brief questionnaire are the result of stubborn obstacles that have been challenging the library profession for decades. Simply put, when sabbatical disparities exist at institutions of higher education, such inconsistencies are often the result of a lack of funding, personnel shortages and ongoing questions concerning the status of academic librarians. Therefore, what may actually be most worth considering when reading a study such as this, is the renewed emphasis on the personal and professional unhappiness such long-standing challenges appear to have had on certain members of our profession.65–68 In fact, what may be most surprising about the comments generated by this questionnaire is not that such conditions remain, but rather that none of these participants mention the need for taking a break from a profession viewed by some with “increasing dissatisfaction and restlessness”69 and by others as needing “better compensation,” improved “supervision and administration, more respect” and daily job functions that are less repetitive and dull.70 It is especially challenging to grapple with the suggestion made by numerous survey respondents (and indeed, this author) that academic librarians ought to increase the rigor of, improve communications about, and take greater accountability for their sabbatical leaves as a means of improving such professional absences' institutional value. Such suggestions are 160 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
complicated by the fact that a significant number of academic librarians remain ineligible for any type of leave whatsoever. Based on these complexities and the degree to which stress and burnout have been documented within the profession,71–73 asking librarians to further expand upon their work-related responsibilities while on sabbatical leave may initially seem unreasonable. Yet, the issue isn't just that we librarians ought to get out more (though I would argue that we do). It is also that those of us who manage to get out need to articulate the value of our experiences with more clarity and precision to our administrators and colleagues. We need to demonstrate why and how it is that getting out for a while has improved our job performance and increased our value as an employee and professional librarian. For example, if taking a sabbatical ameliorates some of the perhaps less positive attributes of the library profession,74 then we might explore why and how such leaves could prove to be vitally important tools in the retention of skilled academic librarians. Rather than writing a personal narrative about how much you enjoyed your time on sabbatical, another suggestion might involve digging into the research on stress and burnout in libraries. Ask how a study (even a small one such as this) might measure the specific ways in which your sabbatical helped you identify and/or beat individual burnout indicators. For those of us fortunate enough to be able to take a sabbatical, the point of this article is not to suck all of the joy and life out of the experience. Rather this study provides one example of how a librarian might create a manageable, research-based project that more closely marries academic rigor to personal experience — if at only a very basic level. The library profession needs to encourage even more creative thinking about the sabbatical experience and to hear a great deal more about successful sabbatical experiences. If only to make the case that we really do need to get out more.
APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.acalib. 2009.01.009.
NOTES
AND
REFERENCES
1. Justine Alsop, “Losing Our Minds,” C & RL News 66 (Dec. 2005): 790–791, 838. 2. Ibid., p. 791. 3. David Fox, “Finding Time for Scholarship: A Survey of Canadian Research University Librarians,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 7 (2007): 454. 4. Ibid., pp. 460, 461. 5. Ibid., p. 461. 6. Sally Jo Reynolds, “Sabbatical: The Pause That Refreshes,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 16 (May 1990): 90–93. 7. Seymour B. Sarason, The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990), p. 140. 8. Andrew E. Carr & Thomas Li-Ping Tang, “Sabbaticals and Employee Motivation: Benefits, Concerns, and Implications,” Journal of Education for Business 80 (Jan.–Feb. 2005): 160–164.
9. Haim H. Gaziel, “Sabbatical Leave, Job Burnout and Turnover Intentions among Teachers,” International Journal of Lifelong Education 14 (July–August 1995): 331–338. 10. Marlis Hubbard, “Exploring the Sabbatical or Other Leave as a Means of Energizing a Career,” Library Trends 50 (Spring 2002): 603–613. 11. Alsop, p. 790. 12. Carolyn Gaskell & Allen S. Morrill, Travel, Sabbatical, and Study Leave Policies in College Libraries: CLIP Note #30 (Chicago: College Libraries Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, 2001), pp.13 & 34. 13. Hubbard, p. 612. 14. Karen F. Smith, “The Sabbatical Option: Who Exercises It?” in Options for the 80s: Proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, edited by Michael D. Kathman & Virgil F. Massman (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1982), p. 461. 15. Carl H. Boening & Michael T. Miller, Research and Literature on the Sabbatical Leave: A Review (College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, 1997, ED 414777), p. 14. 16. Celina M. Sima, “The Role and Benefits of the Sabbatical Leave in Faculty Development and Satisfaction,” New Directions for Institutional Research 105 (Spring 2000): 74. 17. Carr & Tang, pp. 160–164. 18. Smith, pp. 451–461. 19. Sima, pp. 67–75. 20. Gaskell & Morrill, pp. 1–36. 21. Smith, p. 460. 22. Ibid. 23. Boening & Miller, pp. 1–16. 24. Ibid., p. 5. 25. Gaskell & Morrill, pp. 39–110. 26. Ibid., p. 13. 27. Smith, p. 460. 28. Virginia Vesper & Gloria Kelley, Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic Librarians: CLIP Note #26 (Chicago: College Libraries Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, 1997): 23–25. 29. Reynolds, pp. 90–93. 30. Eloise May, “How I Got a Life,” American Libraries 29 (Oct. 1998): 59–61. 31. Robert Genovese, “Highways, Buildings, and Mountains: Driving My Way through a Sabbatical,” Law Library Journal 94 (Spring 2002): 343–352. 32. Robert Genovese, “Taking Care of Business: Further Along the Sabbatical Trail,” Law Library Journal 95 (Summer 2003): 475–481. 33. Hubbard, pp. 603–613. 34. Sima, pp. 67–75. 35. Carr & Tang, pp. 160–164. 36. Staci L. Beavers, “Re-Gaining the Student's Perspective in the Classroom: A Sabbatical Adventure,” PS: Political Science & Politics 38 (Oct. 2005): 769–770. 37. Daniel Y.C. Fung, “Editor's Corner: Academic Sabbatical Leave,” Journal of Rapid Methods & Automation in Microbiology 14 (June 2006): iv–v. 38. May, p. 59. 39. Genovese, “Taking Care of Business,” p. 481. 40. Hubbard, p. 612. 41. Herbert White, “The Role of Reference Service in the Mission of the Academic Library,” in Reference Service: A Perspective, edited by Sul H. Lee (Ann Arbor, MI: The Pierian Press, 1983), p. 23. 42. Ibid., p. 20. 43. Sima, p. 72.
44. David P. Fisher, “Are Librarians Burning Out?,” Journal of Librarianship 22 (Oct. 1990): 216–235. 45. Charles D. Patterson & Donna W. Howell, “Library User Education: Assessing the Attitudes of Those Who Teach,” RQ 29 (Summer 1990): 513–523. 46. Janette S. Caputo, Stress and Burnout in Library Service (Phoenix: Oryx, 1991). 47. Karen A. Becker, “The Characteristics of Bibliographic Instruction in Relation to the Causes and Symptoms of Burnout,” RQ 32 (Spring 1993): 346–357. 48. Mary Ann Affleck, “Burnout among Bibliographic Instruction Librarians,” LISR 18 (1996): 165–183. 49. Deborah F. Sheesley, “Burnout and the Academic Teaching Librarian: An Examination of the Problem and Suggested Solutions,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 27 (2001): 447–451. 50. Rebecca Adler, “The Librarian in the Trench: The Workaday Impact of Information Literacy,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 3 (2003): 447–458. 51. Hasan Siamian and others, “Stress and Burnout in Libraries & Information Centers,” in Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, ed. C. Khoo, D. Singh & A. S. Chaudhry (Singapore: School of Communication & Information, Nanyang Technological University, 2006): 263–268. 52. Caputo, pp. 58–84. 53. Patterson & Howell, p. 521. 54. Becker, p. 355. 55. Affleck, p. 180. 56. Siamian & others, p. 267. 57. Jeff Luzius & Allyson Ard, “Leaving the Academic Library,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (Nov. 2006): 593–598. 58. Smith, pp. 452 & 460. 59. Virginia Vesper & Gloria Kelley, Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic Librarians: CLIP Note #26 (Chicago: College Libraries Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, 1997): 23–24. 60. Gaskell & Morrill, pp. 13 & 34. 61. Fox, pp. 459. 62. Carr & Tang, p. 164. 63. Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 3–30. 64. Deborah Cohen & Benjamin Crabtree, “Triangulation.” Online. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. (July 2006) Available: http://qualres.com/HomeTria-3692. html (April 11, 2008). 65. Jean M. Holcomb, “Battling Burnout,” Law Library Journal 99 (Summer 2007): 669–679. 66. Luzius & Ard, pp. 593–598. 67. Michael Gorman, “Information Overload and Stress: The Ailments of Modern Living” in The Enduring Library: Technology, Tradition, and the Quest for Balance (Chicago: American Library Association, 2003), pp. 122–133. 68. Adler, pp. 447–458. 69. Susanne Markgren, Thad Dickinson, Anne Leonard, & Kim Vassiliadis, “The Five-Year Itch: Are Librarians Losing Their Most Valuable Resources?,” Library Administration & Management 21 (Spring 2007): 76. 70. Luzius & Ard, p.597. For a great deal more on this topic, see also: “Annoyed Librarian.” Online. (N.D.) Available: http://annoyedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ (April 11, 2008). 71. Affleck, pp. 172–178. 72. Becker, pp. 346–357. 73. Patterson & Howell, pp. 513–523. 74. Luzius and Ard, p. 596.
March 2009 161