librarians, scholarship, and faculty status david fox university of saskatchewan library university...

Librarians, Scholarship, and Faculty Status

David FoxUniversity of

Saskatchewan Library

University of CalgaryInformation Resources Planning Day

May 6, 2004

Librarians (and Other IR Professionals), Scholarship,

and Faculty Status

David FoxUniversity of

Saskatchewan Library

University of CalgaryInformation Resources Planning Day

May 6, 2004

A little about me

Academic librarian for 30 years College and university library experience 9 positions in 3 institutions

Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan

Faculty status and tenure in all 3 In and out of scope Currently: Head, IT and TS, UofS Library

A little about me

Management: 3-54 staff Scholarship: one monograph, one

chapter in a collection, two refereed articles, three conference proceedings, numerous technical reports and newsletter articles, and twenty+ conference presentations.

Scholar or manager?

Both Manager by choice; scholar by

necessity Scholarly work necessary for tenure,

promotion, merit increases

What this talk will cover

What is scholarship? What is the nature and extent of librarians’

scholarship What motivates librarians to engage in

scholarship What is the value (if any) of scholarship by

librarians to the individual to the library and host institution to the profession

What is scholarship?

Ernest Boyer: Scholarship Reconsidered : Priorities of the Professoriate, 1990 Based on a survey of faculty, 1989 Traditional view of scholarship as research

and publication only is too restrictive The interests of undergraduate education,

and ultimately of society, require a broader definition of academic excellence

The faculty reward system must support that broader definition

The Boyer model of scholarship

Ernest Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered , 1990

Discovery Integration

ApplicationTeaching

The scholarship of discovery

Traditional research The creation of new knowledge Discovery

The scholarship of integration

Synthesizing new knowledge from existing facts

Interpreting existing knowledge in new ways

Interdisciplinary research

Integration

The scholarship of application

The acquisition of knowledge through professional practice

Application

The scholarship of teaching

Improving and expanding ones own understanding of a discipline by teaching others

Transmitting knowledge in a way that inspires new scholars

Teaching

The Boyer model, continued

The 4 dimensions of scholarship are inseparable

Faculty reward systems should recognize excellence in all 4 categories

Librarians are engaged mostly in the scholarship of application

Discovery Integration

ApplicationTeaching

Rethinking scholarship – the Oregon State experience

Building on Boyer’s work C. J. Weiser led an initiative at OSU in 1996 to: develop a scholarship matrix develop a simple working definition of

scholarship implement that definition in the university’s

standards for tenure and promotion.

http://www.adec.edu/clemson/papers/weiser.html

Oregon State’s definition of scholarship

“Scholarship is any form of creative intellectual work that is validated by peers and communicated.” A simple, elegant statement The OSU “litmus test” Applies to all fields of intellectual endeavour Scholarship is not restricted to universities!

The scholarship of management

Managing in a scholarly way Good management can be “creative

intellectual work” Study and apply management theory,

principles of leadership Peer validation? Communication?

Conference presentations as evidence of scholarship

A much more immediate form of communication than published articles

Can they be peer validated? Conference evaluation forms should

request explicit feedback on each presentation

Nature and extent of librarians’ scholarship (publishing)

Scholarly “output” of academic librarians (Joswick; Weller et al.)

Content of library literature (Crawford; Bao)

Quality of the library literature (Floyd & Phillips)

Scholarly output of academic librarians

What % of academic librarians publish and how much do they publish? Joswick (CRL, July 99) studied journal articles

published by 1,294 Illinois college and university librarians between 1995-1999

13% of the population published at least one article

Avg. output of 1.27 articles/author 64.46% of authors produced just one article Only 8.42% of authors produced more than 3

articles

Scholarly output – author analysis

Where do librarians publish? 90% of articles were in library publications

What are the characteristics of librarians who publish? Males slightly over-represented More frequent contributors are from larger,

research-oriented institutions Collaborative authorship is increasing Women more likely to collaborate than men

Scholarly output – journal analysis

Weller, Hurd, and Wiberly (CRL, July 99) studied the contribution to peer-reviewed literature by practising academic librarians in the U.S. Looked at 3,624 peer reviewed articles in 32 library

journals published between 1993-1997 43% of articles were authored by practicing academic

librarians Avg. output of 0.96 articles/author 78.35% of academic librarians produced just one article Only 2.78% of academic librarians produced more than

3 articles 55.03% of articles were produced by a single author;

36.35% had 2 authors; 5.95% had 3 authors; 2.66% had 3+ authors

Scholarly output – comparison

JoswickAuthor Analysis

Weller, et al.Journal Analysis (peer-reviewed articles)

Average 5 year output of practising academic librarians

1.27 articles 0.96 articles

% librarians producing 1 article 64.46 78.35

% librarians producing 3+ articles 8.42 2.78

Content of the library literature

What do academic librarians write about, and is it research?

Xue-Ming Bao (CRL, Nov 2000) analyzed the content of 682 refereed articles in CR&L and JAL from 1990-1999 in relation to the 1992 ACRL Research Agenda

1992 ACRLResearchAgenda

Research Area %

R4 Library services 23.0

R4 Collections and acquisitions 21.7

R3 Staffing 16.4

R8 The Internet and academic libraries 12.5

R10 Literature of academic librarianship 4.7

R1 Values and academic librarianship 4.1

R2 Organizational structure 3.2

R6 Resources and funding 3.1

R5 Library co-operation 2.8

R7 Standards, accreditation, and assessment 2.5

R9 School of library and information sciences 2.1

Other 4.8(Bao, CRL, v. 61, no. 6, Nov 2000)


“The analysis finds that articles on collections, services, staffing and the Internet have taken up the major portion of the peer-reviewed sections of C&RL and JAL. It also reveals that a wide variety of researchable questions remain to be studied and reported.”

(Bao, CRL, v. 61, no. 6, Nov 2000, p. 536)


Gregory A. Crawford (CRL, May 99) examined the nature of articles in CR&L and JAL for 1996, 1997

Focused on the type of article, structure, methodology, data collection, statistical analysis… to determine the “research” content of these journals

Concluded that 74% of the articles in C&RL and 39% of the articles in JAL could be characterized as research-based…. And that percentage has increased compared to earlier studies

Quality of the library literature

Floyd and Phillips studied the question of whether pressures felt by librarians to publish within the constraints imposed by their institutions are affecting the quality of the library literature.

Barbara L. Floyd and John C. Phillips, “A Question of Quality: How Authors and Editors Perceive Library Literature”. (CRL, Jan 1997, pp. 81-93.)

Floyd and Phillips findings:

Unlike teaching faculty librarians generally enjoy little support for research:“Despite pressure to publish… few librarians worked for institutions with written policies specifying how much time employees could spend on research. Only 19 percent of the authors indicated their institution had such a policy, with an average of four hours per week allowed for research…”



“…One author noted that although librarians were permitted four hours each week, this was ‘theoretic, not a reality on any regular basis’. Another who reported having two to three hours each week for research commented: ‘Obviously, this time alone is nowhere near adequate to sustain a significant publishing record.”



Quality of library literature is compromised by: Librarians’ schedules of assigned duties Lack of release time for scholarship Other time commitments, e.g the need to keep

abreast of rapid technological changes in the field

Barriers to publication posed by editorial and authorship elites



Improving Quality: Administrators must allow release time for

librarians to conduct research Tenure/promotion committees should assess

quality, relevance of submitted articles Editorial boards should assess qualifications of

authors to publish Open up the publishing process to admit a

wider range of qualified authors and ideas Publish outside the field of librarianship


What motivates librarians to engage in scholarship?

Intellectual interest Problem-oriented research Status, prestige External requirement

standards for promotion and tenure

The motivation for librarians’ scholarship

To what extent do local standards for promotion and tenure influence librarians engagement in scholarly publishing?

Do librarians have difficulty meeting these standards?


Numerous articles suggest that the degree of institutional expectation for scholarship, and the opportunity provided, are significant factors influencing the scholarly output of librarians

(Hart; Hoggan; Weller, et al)


W. Bede Mitchell and Mary Reichel investigated the influence of scholarly requirements on librarians’ ability to earn tenure (CRL, May 99)

In a survey of 374 research institutions employing tenure track librarians 60% required some scholarship and 34.6 encouraged it.

92.2% of librarians who underwent tenure review during a 3 year period were approved.

The authors concluded that the requirement for scholarship does not appear to be a deterrent to librarians’ success in obtaining tenure

UofC Handbook for Academic Staff in Information Resources, 6th ed.

Section 4: Criteria for Appointment, Promotion and Performance Assessment

Revised Requirements of Academic Staff by Rank (April 19, 2002)

4.12.3 Scholarship and Innovation (Research, Publications, Creative Activities)

Librarians have a responsibility to contribute to the creative intellectual process that is scholarship. Acknowledgement is also given to innovation which is a key element contributing to the effectiveness of the Library. Evidence of individual achievements in these areas would include

4.12.3.1 Value to the Profession 4.12.3.2 Value to the Library 4.12.3.3 Value to the University 4.12.3.4 Value to other Libraries

4.12.3 Scholarship and Innovation (Research, Publications, Creative Activities)

4.12.3.1 Value to the Profession publication of books, journal articles,

bibliographies, book reviews, guides to the subject literature, literature reviews

entry of information into refereed databases Contributions to an edited book editing a professional newsletter or journal participation as a contributor or speaker at

professional workshops or conferences

UofC Handbook:Requirements of Academic Staff by Rank: Librarian

4.15.3.5 Professional Growth, Service, Scholarship and Innovation

Evidence of continuing professional growth, service and scholarship is required. Meaningful participation in provincial, national or international bodies is expected. Librarians holding non-administrative posts are expected to demonstrate scholarly contributions to further librarianship or related academic disciplines.

UofC Handbook: 4.16 Annual Appraisal

4.16.3 b) Goals 5. Weighting of criteria to be applied to an

individual’s performance in the coming year is mutually established by the individual and the Principal Evaluator, within the following guidelines:

Professional Performance 65-90%

Scholarship 5-15% Service 5-20%

UofS Library standards for promotion and tenure

“The four scholarships of teaching, discovery, integration and application…. are considered in the context of permanent status and promotion considerations.”


“The practice of professional skills is the most important category for the consideration of tenure and promotion. It includes both the demonstration of competency in librarianship (application) and the sharing of knowledge gained through such application within forums where such knowledge is subject to the scrutiny and assessment of one’s peers (scholarship). Application is of equal importance to scholarly work,”


“5.2 Scholarly WorkResearch, scholarly and/or artistic work is creative, intellectual work which is in the public realm and which has been subjected to external peer review. Publication in reputable peer-reviewed outlets is the primary evidence in this category.”


“Scholarly work is expected of all librarians. Unlike traditional faculty research, a librarian’s scholarly work usually derives from professional practice. Candidates for permanent status or promotion will engage in scholarly work appropriate to academic librarianship with the fundamental expectation that the results of scholarly work will be shared with other members of the profession and the academic community.“

UofS Standards: Communication of scholarly work

“The appropriate vehicles for dissemination of scholarly work will include one or more of the following peer reviewed outlets: Articles in scholarly journals; Books, chapters in books; Technical reports/reports to agencies derived from research; Presentations at academic, scientific or professional meetings; Editorial work; Substantial translation work; Curated exhibits.”

Communication of scholarly work, continued

“External peer validation of scholarly work is also derived from evidence of the adoption, implementation or replication of a librarian’s work on policy, practice, technological developments or library services by others in the extended library community.”

UofS Standards:For Tenure as or Promotion to Librarian IV:

“…there must be compelling evidence, beyond that demonstrated for the rank of Librarian III, that:2) The candidate as part of … professional practice has made a significant contribution to the creation and dissemination of knowledge through scholarly work…”


“…There must also be evidence of leadership in the establishment and execution of a clearly defined program of scholarship and a positive indication that the candidate will maintain activity in scholarly work as well as in professional practice….


“… The candidate will have played a leading role in scholarly investigations and disseminating the results in reputable peer reviewed outlets. The candidate will have made a contribution sufficient to be recognized by colleagues in their field in other parts of Canada or internationally. “

Scholarly expectations - UofC

Scholarship broadly defined as: “a creative intellectual process”

Scholarship expected at all ranks Scholarship and professional practice are

considered as different categories Multiple acceptable forms of scholarship

including publications, conference presentations, bibliographies, pathfinders, technical descriptions, consultations

5-15% of annual performance appraisal Somewhat greater expectation for scholarly

contribution by “non-administrative” librarians?

Scholarly expectations - UofS

Scholarship defined as: “creative, intellectual work which is in the public realm and which has been subjected to external peer review. ”

Scholarship expected at all ranks Scholarship is considered an integral part of the practice

of professional skills There must be a “clearly defined program of scholarship” Peer reviewed publication is the primary evidence of

scholarship No guidelines for the proportion of time to be spent on

scholarship For tenure and promotion, scholarship must be assessed

by “at least three senior academic librarians drawn from comparable institutions”

Conclusions from Comparison of UofC vs. UofS Scholarly expectations

Both universities require scholarship by librarians at all levels

UofC applies a balanced formula for assessment of performance, scholarship, service

UofS appears to have more formal, more demanding expectations in terms of type, level, and evaluation of scholarship.

These are two different environments Librarians’ behaviour will conform to the

environment Which model do you prefer?

Scholarly publishing and faculty status for librarians – some skeptics

Not everyone agrees that librarians should research and publish. Kingma and McCombs looked at the opportunity cost of faculty status for librarians:

“Faculty status for academic librarians has consumed the attention of the profession for the last forty years… However, very little attention has been paid to the opportunity costs of faculty status as a component of the total cost of library services… “

Bruce Kingma and Gillian McCombs (College & Research Libraries, 56, May 1995, p. 258-264).


“The opportunity costs of faculty status include the value of the time that librarians use to pursue research interests in addition to the financial costs. The time costs include sabbaticals and other forms of release time, such as the hours allowed the librarian each week to write scholarly articles or give presentations outside the library…”



“There are also across the board overhead costs. The peer review process, used to monitor the production of research and perform quality control functions, involves time spent by librarians to review files and meet collectively.”



Kingma and McCombs suggested that librarians may need to provide evidence that the benefits to the university justify the opportunity costs of faculty status.

They also concluded that faculty status does not result in better quality library services, more productive faculty, or higher salaries for librarians!



Herb White has argued that:

“Real displacement of value systems and of work priorities can occur when librarians try to resemble faculty members or, even worse, when their tenure dossiers are evaluated by faculty who have no idea what professional librarians do and simply insist that librarians ought to look like them...”

H.S. White, “Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: The Search for the Holy Grail” (LJ 11/15/96, p. 39-40)


“… It should be obvious that our schedules cannot produce the same volume of research and publication without limiting our formal job assignments to between five and ten hours per week. Since that won’t happen, we must stress to faculty that judging us by their standards is absurdly unfair. Instead we should emphasize that we are entitled to all of their benefits and all of their status, not because we are exactly like them, but because what we do is important and our contributions are just as significant.”

H.S. White, “Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: The Search for the Holy Grail” (LJ 11/15/96, p. 39-40)


“Over the years I've interacted with librarians before and after they've achieved tenure and/or been promoted, and I can't say that I've noticed any cognitive, behavioral, or affective amelioration as a result. Good librarians are good librarians, with or without faculty status. ... If all the time spent writing often forgettable articles for journals of often questionable quality and compiling bloated dossiers were converted into service delivery, we'd be much better off.”

Blaise Cronin, “The Mother of All Myths” Library Journal 126 no3 144 F 15 2001

Answering the skeptics – opportunity cost

The opportunity cost argument can be made about faculty as well as librarians The research vs. teaching debate all over again

What is the alternative? Yes, there is an immediate service cost to

having librarians engaged in research and publishing

The cost of not doing the research is stagnation for the library profession

Answering the skeptics – quality and quantity of research

The quality argument also applies to teaching faculty

The biggest factor affecting quality and quantity of librarians’ research is release time

Where scholarly publishing is a requirement for tenure and promotion the library has an obligation to provide release time for this activity

Librarians should negotiate release time for research and publishing corresponding to the importance placed on these activities within the standards for tenure and promotion

Answering the skeptics – faculty status

It’s naïve to expect that librarians could successfully argue that we are entitled to all the benefits of faculty status “because what we do is important and our contributions are just as significant” as the faculty’s.

The value system and reward structure of universities emphasizes research, publishing and teaching above all else

What is the value (if any) of scholarship by librarians?

to the individual to the library and host institution to the profession

Value to the individual

Acquisition of knowledge Personal growth Professional status, prestige $$$

Value to the profession

Without scholarship any profession would stagnate

Practicing academic librarians contribute 43% of the library literature

Value to the library and host institution

Creative intellectual work directed towards enhancements in service and local practices benefits the library/institution

Innovation isn’t scholarship unless it is shared with and validated by peers

Is it the innovation, not the scholarship, that’s of value to the local institution?

There may be some prestige value to the library/institution from scholarship by its staff

The library/institution bears the opportunity cost of the scholarship

Librarians, Scholarship and Faculty Status - summary

Scholarship is any form of creative intellectual work that is validated by peers and communicated

Scholarship has 5 dimensions: discovery, integration, application, teaching, and artistic expression

Scholarship requires evidence of external recognition Positive external peer review is the usual standard applied

Librarians are engaged mostly in the scholarship of application

There are many scholarly opportunities for librarians arising from professional practice

Librarians are motivated to engage in scholarship for reasons of intellectual interest, work-related problem solving, and externally imposed requirements

Librarians, Scholarship and Faculty Status - summary

Scholarship by librarians is required for faculty status, tenure and promotion at most universities

Institutional expectations for scholarship by librarians is increasing. The bar has been raised.

Where scholarly publishing is a requirement for tenure and promotion the library has an obligation to provide release time for this activity

Unless library services are to suffer universities must incorporate librarians’ release time into their staffing models

Librarians write about what they know: articles on services collections/acquisitions, and staffing dominate the literature

Quantity of scholarly publishing by practising academic librarians is modest (avg. of 1 peer reviewed article every 5 years)

Summary

Approx. 60% of the articles in major scholarly library journals are research-based

The quantity and quality of librarians’ scholarship is limited by time constraints and other factors, e.g. a lack of training in research methods and statistical analysis

Despite concerns of quality and quantity, practicing academic librarians contribute 43% of the library literature.

Some observers dispute the benefits of faculty status for librarians

Some skeptics argue that librarians should reject the faculty model and concentrate on service

There is an opportunity cost associated with librarians’ scholarship. The same is true for the teaching faculty

Summary

There is no clear connection between the degree of participation in scholarship and library quality

Librarians will continue to embrace the faculty model because it bestows higher salaries, benefits, and prestige

The cost of not doing research is stagnation for the library profession

Scholarship provides value to the profession and the individual. The value to the library and the parent institution is less clear, and may actually be a negative value

My opinion

Librarianship is primarily a practice-based discipline. A degree of scholarship is important and necessary to keep the profession vital. However, the services that librarians provide are the primary reason we exist, and are important, valuable, and essential in their own right.

I agree with Herb White that we should vigorously assert the value of what we do, and not try to imitate the faculty. Our full-time, year-round assignment of duties is such that we will never be able to match the scholarly output of the faculty.

My opinion

However, I’m not optimistic that we will ever be able to convince university administrations, or even our own faculty associations, that librarians deserve the same salary levels as the teaching faculty. It just won’t happen.

Danielle Hoggan* cites research by Rodger Lewis and Richard Meyer that some economists believe that librarians emulating the faculty model too closely will in the long run be counter-productive. Seeking increasing amounts of release time to engage in scholarship may risk undermining the status and benefits we now enjoy.

*Hoggan: Portal, v. 3, no. 3 (2003) 431-445

My opinion

If librarians spend more and more time on research and scholarship, the work of running libraries will have to be done by paraprofessionals. Then it won’t take university administrators long to conclude that we don’t need as many librarians!

So let’s be scholarly, but not too scholarly. Let’s remember that it’s collection building and services that got us this far. Let’s not turn our back on the skills for which our profession is justifiably well regarded in an effort to be something we’re not.

Librarians who really wish to live the scholarly life, and to enjoy faculty salary levels, should quit the library, go get PhD’s, and then find a job where they can concentrate on research, publishing and teaching.

Thank You !

David FoxHead, Information Technology and Technical Services DivisionsUniversity of Saskatchewan Library phone: (306)966-6031 (ITS) phone: (306)966-5949 (TS)fax: (306)966-6040

http://library.usask.ca/~fox/

http://library.usask.ca/~fox/scholarship.ppt

http://library.usask.ca/~fox/

librarians, scholarship, and faculty status david fox university of saskatchewan library university...

Documents

dimensions of scholarship

creation of new knowledge

survey of faculty

new scholarsthe boyer

conference presentations

ernest boyer

conference proceedings

saskatchewanfaculty