scholarly journals Perceptions of Faculty Status among Academic Librarians

2016 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 582-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quinn Galbraith ◽  
Melissa Garrison ◽  
Whitney Hales

This study measures the opinions of ARL librarians concerning the benefits and disadvantages of faculty status in academic librarianship. Average responses from faculty and nonfaculty librarians, as well as from tenured and tenure-track librarians, are analyzed to determine the general perceptions of each group. Overall, faculty librarians reported more positive perceptions of faculty status than nonfaculty librarians. Tenured librarians generally reported more positive perceptions than tenure-track librarians. Despite the differences in opinion, these results offer insight into the potential benefits and disadvantages of faculty status in academic librarianship and suggest that faculty status improves relationships with teaching faculty, even if status alone cannot make them full peers.

1997 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 446-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lothar Spang ◽  
William P. Kane

Scholarship and governance have emerged as the two most problematic aspects of faculty status for academic librarians. A comparative survey of 201 librarians, 126 unaffiliated and 75 unionized, revealed wide disparities, according to librarian status/title designations, in the opportunities afforded librarians to meet these requirements. The 34-item questionnaire focused on librarians’ status/title characteristics, representation means, and institutional support for professional development, sabbaticals/leaves, travel, tuition, and participatory management. Salary information, as a measure of librarian equality to teaching faculty, also was solicited. The survey results confirm that the absence of uniform representation on these status issues has profound implications for the future of the faculty status model as a standard for academic librarianship.


2014 ◽  
Vol 75 (5) ◽  
pp. 724-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quinn Galbraith ◽  
Elizabeth Smart ◽  
Sara D. Smith ◽  
Megan Reed

This study analyzes the status and background of authors publishing in high-impact library science journals. Twenty-three high-impact journals were selected in this study by both quantitative and qualitative measures, while the analysis of author background focuses on whether the author holds a faculty status position with a tenure track. This study finds that 76% of academic librarians publishing in top-tier library science journals have faculty status.


1997 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara L. Floyd ◽  
John C. Phillips

Librarians with faculty status are expected to do research and publish just as their teaching colleagues do. But unlike teaching faculty, most librarians have neither flexible work schedules nor nine-month contracts that are conducive to ongoing research and publication. This means that the requirement to publish in order to be a successful academic often competes with the requirement to perform daily work in order to be a successful librarian. One of the reasons the authors undertook this study was to examine whether the pressure to publish on most academic librarians has an impact on the quality of the literature appearing in library journals. Authors and editors of twenty-two library journals were surveyed to see how both sides of the publishing equation feel about the quality of their end product. This study reveals interesting findings about both editors and authors of library literature, and concludes with suggestions for improving the publishing process.


2017 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elise Silva ◽  
Quinn Galbraith ◽  
Michael Groesbeck

This study explores how time and experience affect an academic librarian’s perception of tenure. Researchers surveyed 846 librarians at ARL institutions, reporting on institutions that offer both tenure and faculty status for their academic librarians or neither. The survey reported how librarians rated tenure’s benefit to patrons, its effect in attracting and retaining quality employees, and tenure as a motivating factor in giving extra effort on the job. Researchers found that tenured librarians rated tenure as more beneficial than librarians without tenure who had more than six years of work experience at their institutions. Furthermore, non–tenure-track librarians with fewer than six years of experience at their institutions rated tenure’s effect on library patrons as more beneficial than tenure-track librarians who had not yet achieved tenure. The study implies a selective perception bias on the part of academic librarians that grows with time and warrants further consideration and study.


2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Carol D Howe

Objective – To study the ways in which novice academic librarians’ perceptions of librarianship develop from the time they decide to attend library school through their first 6 to 24 months of library work. Design – Grounded theory method utilizing two qualitative research techniques: one-on-one, face-to-face interviews and document analysis. Setting – The libraries of three Texas universities, three Texas four-year colleges, and one Texas community college. Subjects – 12 professional academic librarians who graduated from eight different graduate schools. Participants were 6 to 24 months into their professional careers and had little or no pre-professional experience. Methods – The researchers sought participants through mailings, emails, electronic mailing list postings, and referrals from other participants. They conducted a small pilot study with two novice librarians to refine their research methodology. The researchers interviewed additional participants and analyzed the interview transcripts until categories of interest were identified and saturated. Saturation occurred at 12 participants, not including the pilot participants. Each interview was 30-45 minutes. The researchers recorded the interviews and systematically coded the transcripts using activist imagery. Four of the participants gave the researchers their “statement of purpose” essay that they used when applying for graduate school. These documents were also discussed with participants and analyzed. Main Results – From the data they collected, the researchers identified six categories of interest regarding librarians’ perceptions of librarianship: deciding upon a career, experiencing graduate school, continuing education, defining the work, evaluating the work, and (re)imagining the future. In considering librarianship as a career, the participants had not been entirely sure what it entailed, but they utilized what they did know about libraries and librarianship to generally deem the profession solid, safe, and/or noble. They had further explored librarianship to determine its compatibility with their personal characteristics. Such personal reflection had led participants to graduate school where they gained a real understanding of librarianship. The participants had not generally found graduate school to be academically challenging. They had also valued practical over theoretical instruction. Once in the workplace, the participants noted the value of continuing education to strengthen the skills they had learned in graduate school. Participants benefitted the most from informal mentoring and on-the-job training, i.e. “learning by doing” (p. 192). As novice librarians, the participants had learned to feel their way around their job expectations and note the differences between their responsibilities and those of paraprofessionals in the library. As the novice librarians further defined their work, they had also learned that academic librarianship is the sum of many parts, including collaboration with peers. In evaluating their work, the participants noted that they had come to distinguish “real” academic library work, that which uses their expertise and helps society, from “other” work such as clerical work (pp. 195-196). The sixth and final category was “(re)imagining the future.” Most of the participants predicted having advanced as academic librarians in the next five years but were otherwise unsure about what their futures would hold. Conclusion – The researchers made a number of valuable observations in their work with novice librarians. As the step of deciding upon a career seemed to be a murky quest, they thought it would be helpful to analyze public opinion of librarianship and use that information to offset misperceptions about what librarians do. This might help those considering librarianship to make informed and conscious decisions. The study data also provided insight into graduate school. The fact that the participants did not consider graduate school to be rigorous concerned the researchers. They feared that librarians entering the field might not deem it a serious profession. Because the participants favored practical over theoretical classes, the researchers thought it important for graduate schools to teach theoretical concepts in a way that is more satisfying to students. They felt that other applied fields, such as nursing, might provide examples of how to do so. The researchers also noted that graduate schools could do more to prepare students for life on the job. As new librarians reported favouring “real” work over “other” work, the researchers felt that students should hear it first in graduate school that all the work librarians do is an important and necessary part of academic librarianship. As most participants were uncertain about what their futures as academic librarians might look like, the researchers thought that graduate school professors should address that issue as well. Data from this study also gave insight into how employers might best serve new librarians. The researchers suggest looking to new teacher induction programs to get ideas for orienting new librarians to the profession. Orientation might include a combination of formal and informal techniques such as peer mentors, peer observation, new librarian training, and new librarian handbooks in the first year of employment. Finally, the researchers proposed ideas for future research. They believe it might be helpful to study experienced academic librarians or new public librarians for comparison to this study.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6182
Author(s):  
Marijana Pantić ◽  
Saša Milijić

An agreement of cooperation and transmission of knowledge regarding the nomination for the European Green Capital Award (EGCA) was signed between the mayors of Belgrade and Ljubljana (EGCA 2016 winner) in September 2018. The candidacy of Belgrade was finally realized in October 2019. Great hope was placed in this endeavour because internationally recognized awards, such as the EGCA, represent enormous capital for both the city and the state. The EGCA requires serious preparation and significant fulfilment of preconditions. Many economically strong and environmentally responsible cities competed for the award, but did not win. On the other hand, the capital of Serbia does not appear to be an obvious winning candidate, especially as it is differentiated from the previous winners by being a non-EU city and by the fact that it is still undergoing an intense urban transformation, characteristic of transitional countries. Therefore, the main aim of this article is to present a review of the current state of Belgrade’s environmental qualities and its comparison with the EGCA criteria and with Grenoble as one of the winning competitors. The article gives a full overview of the EGCA requirements with certain details on required indicators, gives relevant insight into the procedure, which could be of use for any future candidacy, and discusses potential benefits for winners, losers and repeat candidacies.


2006 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 230-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Budd

Concerns about higher education abound, and these include concerns about productivity. The present study extends two previous examinations of faculty publishing productivity covering the years 1991 to 1993 and 1995 to 1997. Both members of ARL and a group of institutions included in ACRL’s data set are included. For both groups there are some increases in mean total numbers of publications, although the rate of increase has decreased since the second time period. Per capita rates of publication demonstrate an even flatter pattern. In recent years, there have been some changes in the dynamics of universities’ faculties; there are more part-time faculty and more faculty who are not on the tenure track. These factors, coupled with the publishing data, point to activities that all academic librarians should be aware of.


2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Kate Kelly

Bolin, Mary K. “Librarian Status at U.S. Research Universities: Extending the Typology.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34.5 (August 2008): 416-24. Objective – To describe and categorize the status of librarians at 119 American research libraries using a typology of librarian status first developed for 50 U.S. land grant universities. Design – Survey. Setting – U.S. research universities. Subjects – 119 American research universities. Included are those universities whose library is a member of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), in addition to land grant universities who are not also ARL members, and any flagship state universities who are neither ARL nor land grant universities. All subjects are classified as either “research – very high” or “research – high” in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. The 119 institutions represent a total census of the selected population. Methods – The websites of the 119 institutions were surveyed and data on institutional characteristics such as governance, size and geography collected. Additionally, data describing librarian status characteristics such as administrator title, rank systems and tenure status was gathered from sources such as promotion and tenure documentation, faculty handbooks, and policy manuals available on websites. Data was compiled on a spreadsheet and imported into SPSS which was used to create frequencies and cross tabulations. Data was categorised and cross-tabulated using a typology of status originally applied to 50 land grant universities in a previous study. The typology comprises four possible status types for librarians: Type 1 – Faculty: Professorial ranks. Type 2 – Faculty: Other ranks with tenure. Type 3 – Faculty: Other ranks without tenure. Type 4 – Non-faculty: Professional or academic staff. Main Results – In the 119 institutions surveyed, librarians held faculty status at 74 (62%) institutions, of which 63 (51%) provided tenure track positions. At the remaining 45 (38%) institutions, librarians were considered non-faculty. Of the 50 “land grant” institutions in the population, 40 (80%) had librarians with faculty status and 35 (70%) provided tenure track. Ten universities (20%) considered librarians non-faculty. Of the 97 ARL libraries in the population, 55 (57%) had librarians with faculty status and 44 (45%) provided tenure track. Non-faculty librarians were found at 42 (43%) of these institutions. Of the 90 public institutions in the population, 68 (76%) had librarians who were faculty, 57 (64%) provided tenure track, and 22 (24%) had non-faculty librarians. Among the 29 private institutions the status ratios were reversed with only 4 (13%) institutions having librarians ranked as tenure track faculty (type 1 or type 2) and 23 (80%) having non-faculty librarians. In the total population (119) type 3 “Faculty: Other ranks without tenure” was the least common category, 48% (57) of libraries were headed by a dean, 67% (80) of institutions had librarian representation on faculty senate and as the size of an institution increased the likelihood of librarians having faculty rank decreased. “Dean” was the most popular administrator title in the population; it correlated with professorial rank and was strongly associated with tenure. Having tenure was, in turn, strongly associated with faculty senate representation. In the Northeast census region type 4, non-faculty staff predominated while type 1 was rare; in the Midwest there was an almost even split between type 1 and type 4; in the South there was a fairly even spread across all four types, and in the West a fairly even spread across types 1, 2 and 4. Finally, the data showed that as the size of an institution increased, the likelihood of librarians having faculty rank decreased. Conclusion – The typology created for land grant universities can be extended and applied to a wider population. It is valid and reliable both for organizing information about librarian status and for comparing institutions and population segments.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 228-236
Author(s):  
Tine Louise Dideriksen ◽  
Marianne Lisby ◽  
Nina Brünés ◽  
Pia Dreyer

Background: In the meeting between socially marginalised patients and somatic hospitals, healthcare systems often encounter complex challenges related to health inequalities that are difficult to resolve. To help reduce these challenges, a nursing approach employing a nurse (RN) with in-depth knowledge of socially marginalised patients and competences in rehabilitation (“social nurse”) has contributed to diminish health inequalities. However, further insight into the potential benefits of social nursing is required. Aim: To examine how social nurses describe and experience the social nursing approach situated at somatic hospitals. Methods: A qualitative study of social nurses’ descriptions and experiences with a social nurse approach included eight Danish hospitals. One male and 12 female nurses (n=13) employed as social nurses at somatic hospitals participated. Thirteen semi structured interviews were conducted using the methodological frameworks of phenomenology and hermeneutics. The interviews were analysed employing a method inspired by the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation. Results: Four themes emerged from the analysis: 1) A unique expertise encompassing experience and evidence-based knowledge 2) coordination towards a common goal to reduce patients’ vulnerability, 3) to see and understand patients as whole persons, thereby assuring successful treatment and 4) working with the system to avoid losing the patients. The themes describe a unique expertise emerging from focusing healthcare efforts on the socially marginalised patients and the system in charge. Conclusion: The study indicated that the social nurse approach is a holistic nursing approach. Applying this approach allows for optimised treatment that fosters a more equal outcome across the spectrum of socially marginalised patients. The social nurse approach may contribute to diminishing health inequalities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document