Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DePew, John N. Allison, Anne Marie (1984) - Factors Affecting Academic Library Administration 1976-1981
DePew, John N. Allison, Anne Marie (1984) - Factors Affecting Academic Library Administration 1976-1981
John N. DePew MSLS, PhD & Anne Marie Allison MLS, PhD
To cite this article: John N. DePew MSLS, PhD & Anne Marie Allison MLS, PhD (1984) Factors
Affecting Academic Library Administration 1976-1981, Journal of Library Administration, 5:2,
13-57, DOI: 10.1300/J111V05N02_03
Article views: 6
Download by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] Date: 09 June 2016, At: 02:41
SURVEY OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY
ADMINISTRATION
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
Factors Affecting
Academic Library Administration
1976- 1981
John N. DePew
Anne Marie Allison
INTRODUCTION
The social unrest of the sixties was crystallized for librarians in the
revolt that took place at the American Library Association annual con-
ference in Atlantic City in June 1969. That event, which David Kaser
called "the revolution of 1969-1970," led to the clarification of the
sources and the flow of authority in library decision-making in the years
to come.' The driving force behind the "revolution" was the quest of li-
brarians for a share of the power held by administrators. Of course, not
all librarians were involved. In fact, only a minority of academic librari-
ans were actively pursuing this goal. Those who did soon came to iden-
tify two kinds of authority:
John N. Depew, MSLS, Ph.D.. is Associate Professor at the School of Librm and Information
Studies. Florida State University. Tallahassee.
Anne Marie Allison, MLS, is Director of Libraries at the Univcrsily of Central Florida.
Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 5(2), Summer 1984
0 1984 by The Hawonh Press, Inc. All rights resewed. 13
JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
THE PROBLEM
OBJECTIVES
METHODOLOGY
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
The purpose of the 1981 survey was to ascertain any changes or shifts
that took place over the five years since the earlier investigation. There-
fore, the target population was necessarily limited to those 1032 aca-
demic libraries which responded to the initial study questionnaires in
1976.6 The population was closely examined for homogeneity. Single
purpose professional institutions, such as schools of pharmacy and the-
ology, which had responded to the 1976 survey, were excluded, reduc-
ing the survey population by 44 to 988 two year colleges, colleges, and
universities.
All of the original respondents were listed in the National Center for
Education's Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS)for
College and University Libraries of Fall 1977.' This was the latest
HEGIS information available in machine readable form at the time the
project was being developed and, therefore, was used to produce data
describing the population libraries. Each of the original questionnaires
was assigned the Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE)
code in effect for that institution in the Fall of 1977. The FICE code was
used throughout the study to identify all information gathered about the
institution.
Libraries in the survey population were grouped according to highest
level of offering of the parent institution as categorized in Table 1. The
institutional categories the libraries fell within are those established by
the National Center for Education Statistics in the 1977 HEGIS Data
Base Documentation, and presented in "Table 8-Highest Level of
Offering," of that p~blication.~ "Table 9-Institution Type," of the
HEGIS Documentation was used to identify the Junior Colleges in the
pop~lation.~
There were disadvantages to readministrating the questionnaire used
in the 1976 survey, primarily because of its open-ended nature. Never-
theless, it was important to ask the same questions as in the original
study in order to preserve the integrity of the results and increase the
usefulness of the data. The earlier analysis had clearly demonstrated that
such an open-ended instrument was very difficult to tabulate and, with
Survey of Academic Library Administration
Table I
L i b r a r i e s I n The Survey P o p u l a t i o n
Total No. i n
Type o f I n s t i t u t i o n Pop. Sample Percent
6. Has this reporting line (path) changed within the last five years?
Yes- No-
a. If yes, how?
b. If yes, who or what was responsible for the change?1°
In the 1981 survey, question six was expanded into three new questions:
3. Has this reporting line changed since 1975? (Circle one number)
I YES
2 NO
4. How has reporting line changed? (Circle one number)
1 MORE DIRECT NOW
2 LESS DIRECT NOW
3 LATERAL SHIFT, CHANGE IN UNIT AFFINITY
4 OTHER (SPECIFY)
18 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
5 . Who or what was responsible for the change? (Circle numbers that
apply)
1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
2 CONSULTANT
3 IMPLEMENTATION OF LRC CONCEPT
4 SUPERVISOR OF LIBRARIAN
5 RECOMMENDATION OF LIBRARIAN
6 SELF STUDY
7 ACCREDITATION REVIEW
8 OTHER (SPECIFY)
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
*These regions were those used in the HEGlS Data Base Uociimentatio~~. Table 6 , and are as
follows:"
I -New England 6-Southwest
CT ME MA NH RI' VT AZ NM OK TX
2-Mid East 7-Rocky Mountains
DE DC MD NJ NY PA CO 1 D W T UT W Y
3-Great Lakes 8-Far West
IL IN MI OH WI AR' CA HI' NV OR WA
4-Plains 9-Outlying Areas"
IA KS MN MO NE N D S D CZ GU PR VI
5-Southeast 0-U.S. Service Schools
AL AR FL GA KY LA' MS' T h e r e were no academic library responses
NC SC TN VA WV' from these states or areas.
Survey of Academic Library Administration 19
the question and did not include all of the possible responses for the cat-
egory of institution being analyzed. A further analysis, incorporating all
of the steps described above, was also done by type of institution.
The data for each question were then arranged into five general areas
for analysis and discussion:
5. External Factors
THE DIRECTOR
Objectives one and two of the study were covered by this category,
i.e., the power of the director and length of time on the job. Certain
non-statistical inferences could be drawn from discovering: the distance
between the director and the chief administrative officer, the director's
immediate supervisor in the reporting line, whether that reporting line
had changed in recent years, and who or what was responsible for the
change. Other questions identified the superior of the director's supe-
rior, whether there was any change in that relationship, and why. The
questionnaire listed a number of changes that may have taken place
since 1975 in order to ascertain whether they had made differences in
the librarians' ability to carry out their responsibilities. The last question
in this group concerned turnover of directors during the decade.
One respondent said, "The role of the library director has become in-
finitely more complex with the passing years." Another wrote, "I be-
lieve that more and more, the authority of the library director is linked
to the person rather than to the office." Without an elaborate on-site in-
terview process, the study ,could not analyze such a personality-based
factor. It did isolate some measurable components of the directorship,
and traced changes in these components across the study period.
20 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
-In two year colleges 12.0 percent of all directors reported to the
president in 1976. By 1981 this fell to 6.9 percent.
-In colleges 6.4 percent of all directors reported to the president in
1976. By 1981 this fell to 4.2 percent.
-In universities 8.7 percent of all directors reported to the president
in 1976. By 1981 this fell to 2.9 percent.
In the early seventies a popular maxim was that directors should per-
sonally report to presidents, with no intermediaries. This was also a ma-
jor conclusion of the Booz, Allen Hamilton study of the Columbia Uni-
versity Libraries, which recommended that, "Columbia's libraries
should be headed by a single executive officer with the title and status
of Vice President and University Librarian," and that, "He should be a
member of the President's cabinet and other top councils of the univer-
sity. "I4 Obviously, the suggestion was not widely accepted. Indeed, the
concept lost ground during the study period. If reporting directly to the
president is a measure of prestige, then the concern of the original ques-
tionnaire designers (that directors were losing prestige) was justified.
22 JOURNAL O F LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
The survey attempted to identify the specific position to which the di-
rector reported. Was it the principal academic officer (provost, execu-
tive vice-president, or academic dean) or another individual? Most li-
brarians believe that reporting to the academic officer is more desirable
than being administratively part of a support unit. In fact, some feel it is
critical if the library is to successfully defend its budget requests, etc.
One two year college librarian said:
-In two year colleges 79.5 percent of all directors reported to the
chief academic officer in 1976. By 1981 this fell to 75.1.
-In colleges 90.7 percent of all directors reported to the chief aca-
demic officer in 1976. By 1981 this rose to 94.1 percent.
-In universities 87.4percent of all directors reported to the chief
academic officer in 1976. By 1981 this fell to 71.2 percent.
Table 2
Changes i n Reporting L i n e
Between L i b r a r y D i r e c t o r and President
1976 1981
Type of Change I I # I
they felt their relationship with their superiors had become more direct
in the past five years was more than twice as great as the number who
felt it had become less direct. By 1981 this had changed. At that time
the number who felt the reporting relationship had become less direct
about equaled the number who felt it had become more direct. Were di-
rectors &joying fewer close associations with the upper echelons, or
were they merely giving new interpretations to old relationships? The
data must be viewed in light of the fact that almost one third of the di-
rectors had changed positions themselves during the time in question.
This is described later.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
One director commented that while her staff saw her as a senior man-
ager, she often moved in response to mandates from the provost. A pic-
ture emerged of the head librarian, seen by his or her own staff as a
powerful figure. At the same time, his or her self-image was more that
of a beleagured middle manager. Resolution of these conflicting views
might be a goal for academic librarians during the 80s.
The questionnaires asked participants to name the authority to whom
the chief institutional officer reported. The 1976 replies to this question
were not usable, but in 1981 there were 840 valid answers which pro-
duced the following results:
They were asked if this person or body (to whom the institution's
president reports) had changed during the past five years. In 1976, 7 . 6
percent of those answering this question (59 libraries) said, "Yes" and
92.4 percent (721 libraries) said, "No. " There were 780 valid answers to
this inquiry. By 1981, there were 813 answers. At which time, 12.7
percent (103 libraries) said, "Yes" and 87.2 percent (709 libraries) said,
"No." With just a small rise in the total number of usable replies, (813
vs. 780), there was an increase in the positive replies. This amount of
change may well be normal. It is possible that a similar review of 836
other non-profit organizations in the same period would have shown the
same amount of change in governing body or board.
Those completing the questionnaire were asked for opinions on who
or what was responsible for change in the authority to whom the Presi-
dent reported. The replies are tallied in Table 3.
When asked to describe these changes, they named a change in the
governmental body involved, the addition of student representation on
the board, creation of a new, more or less autonomous board, and oth-
JOURNAL O F LIBRARY ADMINlSTRATION
Table 3
No. o f R e p l i e s
Cause 1976 1981
Governor
ers. They were asked if any change in the authority to whom the presi-
dent reports was the result of recommendation from consultants. The
role of consultants was not significant. Only two institutions in 1976
and seven in 1981 said consultants had been involved in these adjust-
ments.
The director seemed to be a middle manager, firmly under the control
of the upper administration. His or her predicament may not be signifi-
cantly different from that of deans in academic departments, or division
managers in industrial settings. However those officials work in differ-
ent political climates. Deans operate in an atmosphere that stresses indi-
viduality, one that at least theoretically holds the dean is only "first
among equals." In industry, accountability and efficiency are "bottom
line" issues rather than standards for discussion. Library directors work
with a staff mix of professional, technical, and clerical personnel. They
must operate with all the constraints and hazards of the dean's opera-
tion, and they lack the real power of managers in the private sector.
There was little variation among the different types of libraries in the
responses to these questions. While institutions themselves and their re-
porting lines were changing, individual librarians began and finished di-
rectorial assignments. There was more stability in director tenure than
anticipated: 331 of the 836 libraries reported there was no new director
named between 1970 and the spring of 1981. Thus 37.5 percent of these
institutions operated under a single leadership figure throughout the
study period. The two year colleges provided the most stable environ-
ment for directors (41.4 percent reported no turnover). This is surpris-
ing, and somewhat in conflict with their image as rapidly changing insti-
tutions. One sub-set of the universities, the institutions with membership
in the Association of Research Libraries, proved to be the most volatile
in terms of executive turnover. Among those libraries, only 27.7 percent
indicated they finished the period with the same director who had been
in office at the start. Table 4 illustrates the number of changes in direc-
Survey of Academic Library Administration 27
tors among the various types of institutions during the period from 1970
to 1981. There is evidence that some of these figures represent migra-
tion. Some individuals acted as directors in two or even three libraries
during the span of time of the survey. Some retired; others left the pro-
fession; some chose a return to non-administrative posts; some were
forced to leave by their staff or by institutional management.. The rate of
director turnover increased for all types of institutions during the five
year period from1976 through 1980, compared to 1970 through 1976,
and seemed to be accelerating in the first months of 1981. Turnover in-
creased in university libraries 57.9 percent, college libraries 42.2 per-
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
cent, and all institutions 40.3 percent, over the 1970-1976 time period.
In the 1976 questionnaire, respondents suggested changes that oc-
curred in the past five years that affected their ability to cany out their
responsibilities. Their replies were clustered and ranked as shown in Ta-
ble 5. These categories of change were offered to participants in the
1981 survey, and they were given the option of checking them by means
of this question, "Have any of the changes listed below occurred since
1975 and impacted on your librarians' ability to cany out their responsi-
bilities?" Their reponses produced the results depicted in Table 6. The
question was answered somewhat differently by class of library. This is
Table 4
D i r e c t o r Turnovers - 1970-81
l i b r a r i e s i n each category.
b. Through A p r i l o f 1981 o n l y .
turnover.
JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
Table 5
Factors Affecting The A b i l ~ t yTo
Successfully Carry-Out Responsibilities - 1970-75
Table 6
Factors Affecting The Ability To
Successfully Carry-Out Responsibilities - 1976-81a
illustrated by ignoring the "other" category, and listing the three most
frequent replies from each type of library:
Among two year colleges in 1976, the most frequent replies were:
increasing bureaucratization, followed by change in college admin-
istration, then growth in size.
By 1981, their most frequent replies were: financial resources lim-
ited, followed by shrinking resources and growth in size, then
change in college administration.
Survey of Academic Library Adminisrrnrion 29
universities, 287 out of 327. It seems safe to assume that the on-line
networks will persist into the 90s. However, managing network partici-
pation will become a challenge to directors' administrative skills as the
utilities mature. The high cost of maintaining national (and interna-
tional) cataloging standards may price some institutions out of the mar-
ket, thrusting a director between what is "best" for the local library and
what is being demanded by the network. Presidents and provosts admire
directors who are able to negotiate cooperative inter-institutional agree-
ments, but they will become less than enthusiastic when the demands of
the network are not in harmony with local needs. It appears that technol-
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
ogy will not be the stumbling block to greater and more mutually-depen-
dent on-line affiliations. The difficulties will center on costs, taxation
without representation, and willingness to make concessions on political
and economic issues. Network membership is discussed again later, in
the section on organizational trends. It is worth noting that it was not
even considered as a point to be covered when the original questionnaire
was designed. If there should be a third survey in 1986, however, it
seems clear that computer literacy and the ability to manage technology
will be seen as major elements in directorial success.
In summary, quite often there were eight or more persons reporting to
the director, and indications were that his or her span of control was
broader than in earlier years. Generally, information about the power
structure in the chain of command above the library portrayed a typical
director who reported to a chief academic officer (vice-president or
dean), who was usually just one position removed from the president.
This president, in turn, reported to a state or private board that remained
relatively stable over the decade. There seemed to have been some shift-
ing of reporting lines. Decisions to initiate these shifts were most often
made by the president. The rate of director turnover was increasing by
the end of the report period, especially in college and university libraries
where it was rising significantly. Diminishing funds and institutional
growth affected librarians' abilities to successfully discharge their re-
sponsibilities.
COMMITTEES
tees then and now, i.e., the establishment of internal staff committees
created to examine, make recommendations, and occasionally, decisions
about the matters brought before them. During the last two decades
American academic libraries have established numerous internal policy-
making and recommending committees in addition to the traditional ex-
ternal faculty committees. Therefore, the survey included questions on
internal and external decision and recommendation making committees.
Seventy-three percent of the libraries had traditional faculty library
committees in 1976. This figure declined slightly to 70 percent in 1981.
The committees were, for the most part, composed of teaching faculty,
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
some with librarians and students represented, and almost all included
the head librarian.
Most faculty library committees operate in an advisory capacity and,
in fact, work best when they do not deviate from that role and carry out
the functions enumerated by Rogers and Weber.17 They should not in-
tervene in the administration of the library and that tradition was alive
and healthy in 1976 and 1981. Over 610 faculty library committees re-
stricted their activities to policy recommendations in 1976, but this fig-
ure declined to 586 in 1981. Those which were active in decision-mak-
ing rose from 42 in 1976 to 83 in 1981.
The number of faculty committees declined by about 10 percent in
colleges, but rose by 14 percent in universities over the period of the
study. However, as seen in Table 7, the number in two year colleges
had declined to a point where just a little over half had standing faculty
committees in 1981. The rapid growth of two year institutions was a re-
cent phenomenon in the seventies and there may have been insufficient
time for the tradition of the faculty library committee to grow. Perhaps
for that reason (and the feeling of some that community college librari-
ans were more integrated into campus life than librarians in other types
of academic institutions) the need for a liaison group linking the faculty
and the library was obviated.
Some faculty library committees recommended policy as well as
Table 7
1976 1981
Type o f I n s t i t u t i o n # 1 B 9;
TWO y e a r c o l l e g e s
Colleges
Universities
All Institutions
32 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
of two year college libraries), but the second and third characterizations
changed places. In both 1976 and 1981 these committees included li-
brary professional staff, tended to include faculty members, and were
often the same committee that made recommendations. Most of the de-
cision-making committees remained fairly stable throughout the decade
with 76.1 percent of the directors reporting no changes in 1976 and 60.3
percent no changes in 1981. Where change did occur, it was most often
in the area of composition and function, which was expected.
It is probable that committees that make decisions are more signifi-
cant than those that only make recommendations.. The former may be
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
ORGANIZATIONAL TRENDS
I n t e r n a l Organization Change
I n Academic L i b r a r i e s
1976 1981
Type of I n s t i t u t i o n ff % W 2
A l l Institutions
A. The 10.000t and ARL l i b r a r y figures are subsumed i n the u n i v e r s i t y figures and are
not included i n the "A11 I n s t i t u t i o n s " t o t a l s .
Survey of Academic Library Administration 35
The survey attempted to learn about the nature of the internal organi-
zational shifting that had been tallied. Participants were asked to de-
scribe it. Their replies were assigned to one of eight general categories,
and to an "other" classification. The general categories are listed below,
in rank order, by frequency of appearance in the 1976 survey:
5. addition of functions
6. learning resource center unified under library director
7. learning resource center unified under new position
8. reduction in staff
1. addition of staff
2. addition of functions
3. reduction of staff
4. more report directly to the director
5. learning resource center unified under library director
6. more administrative positions defined
7. fewer report directly to the director
8. learning resources center unified under new position
5. position unfilled
6. self study
7. new facility
Over ninety percent of all replies fit into the first two categories. The
last three specific causes were suggested by equal, but very small num-
bers of participants. In 1981 the frequency with which various catego-
ries were selected changed somewhat. At that time, the order was:
While the issue of the Learning Resources Center was not reported as
a major description of change, it figured prominently as a cause given
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
Table 9
S e l f S t u d i e s Conducted i n Academic L i b r a r i e s
MRAP' s i n c e 1975
MRAP b e f o r e 1975
A L D P ~s i n c e 1975
ALDP b e f o r e 1975
O t h e r s i n c e 1975
O t h e r b e f o r e 1975
None
V a l i d cases
ance. Whatever the reason, many institutions, with the exception of two
year colleges, indicated that more of them were collegially organized in
1981 than in 1976. Since no attempt was made to provide a definition of
collegiality in the 1976 survey, none was offered in 1981. Thus its defi-
nition was left to the interpretation of the respondents.
The larger academic libraries increasingly embraced this type of orga-
nization during the decade. Institutions with student bodies of 10,000 or
more indicated that 75.9 percent in 1976, and 80.0 percent in 1981,
were collegially organized. The next largest group were ARL libraries
with 63.4 and 69.0 percent respectively, followed by university libraries
in general, with 58.2 and 64.8'percent respectively. The collegial form
of government declined in two year institutions, dropping almost six
percent between 1976 and 1981 (from 50.3 to 44.9 percent). Many
community college libraries were organized in parallel with the institu-
tions' media centers under a dean of instructional services. The small
size of the professional staff and a more structured hierarchical organi-
zational design may have inhibited two year college libraries from easily
assuming the more flexible interactive approach to governance that the
collegial model encourages. The collegial model was even less popular
among college libraries (39.4 percent in 1976), perhaps for the same
reasons as two year colleges. Although, they too increasingly embraced
this form of governance until in 1981 they were almost even with two
year colleges with 43.5 percent.
The next question addressed was the status of collegiality. Was the li-
brary collegial organization considered a unit within the total academic
faculty, did it meet as a separate faculty body, was it actually active as a
governing body, was it an internal council or something else? A re-
sponse was also supplied for those who may have confused "collegial"
with faculty status, i.e., did the group have faculty status, but not meet
as a unit?
Figure 1 shows that the number of libraries which stated that the
group was inactive dropped from 1976 to 1981 in almost all cases, the
exception again being the two year colleges. Less than half of all li-
braries indicated that the collegial body operated as a unit within the
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
0
1976 1981 1976 1981 1976 1981
U n i t Within N o t A c t i v e as a Meet as a S e p a r a t e
the faculty Collegial b d y F a c u l t y Body
faculty body. Most types reported that that was slowly changing, with
the exception of those libraries in institutions with a student population
of 10,000 or more. The number of library groups meeting as a separate
faculty body rose for ARL, 10,000+ and university libraries, but
dropped for two and four year college libraries. The average of all insti-
tutions remained the same for both 1976 and 1981 at a little over 11
percent.
Most of these collegial bodies were created before 1971. The only
exceptions were in ARL libraries where 44.1 percent were organized
from 1971 through.1975. The rate of creation of collegially oriented li-
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
brarians' groups dropped for all types of libraries between 1976 and
1981. Perhaps participatory management had reached its peak in the
early 1970s and the.reduction in the creation of collegial forms of gov-
ernance was one manifestation of a change in that trend. However, the
types of decisions made by these bodies may throw some light on
whether they are indeed retaining their effectiveness as vehicles for par-
ticipatory management. A precipitous drop took place between 1976 and
1981 in the number of organizations reporting that these bodies partici-
pated in all decisions relating to library policy. In 1976, 35.9 percent of
the responding institutions indicated they participated in all such deci-
sions; in 1981, only 8.0 percent so reported. On the other hand, there
was also a drop from 35.9 percent to 22.2 percent of those reporting that
they did not participate in any policy decisions. This parallels the expe-
rience of committee activities reported earlier.
Promotion and tenure recommendations were the most frequent type
of activities these groups were involved in, followed by planning and
operational policy decisions. However, as seen in Figure 2, a curious re-
versal of this flow took place in the university and 10,000+ groups.
In the former, promotion and tenure activities dropped from 32.0 to
21.3 percent, and in the latter operational recommendations fell from
12.7 percent to 8.7 percent. In contrast to this, Figure 2 shows that li-
brarians' participation in promotion and tenure decisions in both the
ARL and the 10,000+ groups rose considerably, from 21.7 percent in
1976 to 50.0 percent in 1981 for the former, and from 2.0 percent in
1976 to 36.9 percent in 1981 for the latter.
Libraries were becoming less democratic and more exclusive in al-
lowing staff members to participate in'these collegial bodies. In 1976,
67.3 percent of all academic libraries in the study extended membership
to all staff members. This dropped to 39.6 percent in 1981. Administra-
tive staff, including directors, as well as staff members in non-librarian
categories, were increasingly excluded over those years.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
Survey of Academic Library Administration
FACULTY STATUS
Faculty status has been analyzed ad nauseum in the literature of li-
brary science and the question of whether it is justified will not be dis-
cussed in this article. However, the question was asked, "Do your li-
brarians have faculty status?" and Figure 3 shows that 78.7 percent of
all librarians responding to the survey had some sort of faculty status.
This percentage correlates with other studies done recently."
No attempt was made to define faculty status, thus responses were
made in terms of the environment and the perception of the respondent.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
-Librarians have faculty status. They are employed for the same
time periods and on the same salary schedule. All sick leave, retire-
ment, health benefits, etc. are the same. This is typical of California
community colleges.
-Librarians' salaries are the same (considering experience1
qualifications) as faculty members, i.e., the same salary schedule is
used for both. Librarians are considered faculty. They serve on fac-
ulty committees. They have all the privileges and responsibilities
which pertain to faculty.
-Librarians have the same benefits and privileges as teaching fac-
ulty. They are on 11-month contracts.
-Librarians have same responsibilities and privileges as faculty with
exception of equal economic rewardslacademic year appointments.
Salary equalization now being accomplished. Chance of academic
years appointment appears dim.
-Faculty status means that Librarians follow the same academic cal-
endar as other faculty, and are paid according to the same schedule.
-Professional library staff members are considered non-instructional
faculty. We are paid on the faculty pay schedule and have the same
holidays and other benefits that instructional personnel have.
-Faculty status-yes, but we work a 12 month year without added
pay. We no longer have academic rank and cannot be promoted.
We do get sabbaticals.
-In (the) North Carolina community college system, faculty status
for librarians only provides for representation on the faculty senate,
sabbaticals and travel allocations. Salaries are excluded from
faculty profiles and are "lumped" with supportive personnel.
JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
PERCENT
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
Figure 3
Colleges:
tical leave, advise students, have all faculty benefits and pre-
requisites.
-May hold membership on faculty committees; voting privileges in
faculty meetings; same fringe benefits and school vacations as
teaching faculty; same salary scale.
-Faculty status is full and exactly like that of teaching faculty.
-Apparently based on the person-present librarian was hired as
Assistant Librarian with rank, present Assistant Librarian was
hired without rank.
-"Faculty status" meaningless. Can serve on all but important (i.e.,
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
Universities:
UNIONS
ies, and 69.6 percent of those bodies were mature (defining mature as
having been organized more than five years ago). In contrast, during the
same period (covered by the 1976 survey) only 18.2 percent indicated
that library staff was organized in unions; and 65.2 percent of those
units had been formed during the preceeding five years. By 1981 the
proportion reporting unionization rose from 18.2 to 25.4 percent over-
all. However, in this later period only 38.9 percent of them were ,new
(i.e., organized during the previous five years). It appears there were far
fewer unions than collegial bodies, and they were newer organizations.
Comparing this data froin the different types of libraries shows the fol-
lowing patterns.
-in 1976, 50.3 percent reported collegial bodies; 26.2 percent re-
ported unions and 61.9 percent of those with unions said they had
been organized during the past five years.
-in 1981, 44.9 percent reported collegial bodies; 38.8 percent re-
ported unions; and 36.3 percent of those with unions said they had
been organized during the past five years.
In college libraries:
-in 1976, 39.4 percent reported collegial bodies; 5.1 percent re-
ported unions; and 46.2 percent of those with unions said they had
been organized during the past five years.
-in 1981, 43.5 percent reported collegial bodies; 7.7 percent re-
ported unions; and 22.6 percent of those with unions said they had
been organized during the past five years.
In university libraries:
-in 1976, 58.2 percent reported collegial bodies; 18.9 percent re-
ported unions; and 73.8 percent of those with unions said they had
been organized during the past five years.
Survey of Academic Library Administration 47
-in 1981; 64.8 percent reported collegial bodies; 23.6 percent re-
ported unions; and 48.4 percent of those with unions said that they
had been organized in the past five years.
As might be expected, the two year colleges, with their close associa-
tion with public school districts, showed a high incidence of unionized
staff.
Discrepancies among the university libraries as a group and its sub-
groups (those with larger enrollments and/or ARL membership) might
be accounted for by the fact that the latter groups included a higher pro-
portion of tax supported institutions, many of which were parties to col-
lective bargaining agreements on a state-wide basis, while the former
group included greater numbers of privately-funded schools.
After supplying information on the existence and age of unions, re-
spondents were asked to name the specific unions to which members of
their staff belonged. Table 10 tabulates the distribution of the most pop-
ular unions in libraries.
Between 1976 and 1981, most of the national unions appear to have
retained their relative position in the rankings. The exception is NEA,
which made a noticeable leap from third rank (13 institutions), to first
rank (66 institutions), replacing the AFT. In addition to instances in
which specific national groups were identified in the 1976 returns, 80
other unions were described by a local name or by generic type, such as
"teachers' association." In contrast, there were one hundred and sixty-
one of these mentioned in 1981. It is likely that some of them (e.g.,
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
Survey of Academic Libray Administranon 49
Among the two year colleges in 1976, 78 were unionized and there
were 82 patterns of membership described. Those most frequently
mentioned were:
-Librarians and staff belong to separate unions 16
-Non-administrative librarians belong to unions 13
-None excluded (everyone can belong); and classified staff (non-
librarian, non-administrative staff) belong to unions 11
-All staff (except administration) belong to unions 10
By 1981, among the mo year colleges, 116 were unionized and there
were 149 patterns of membership described. Those most frequently
mentioned were:
-Librarians and staff belong to separate unions 42
-Librarians, with MLS or equivalent, belong to unions 28
-Classified staff (non-librarian, non-administrative staff); and all
staff (except administration) belong to unions 20
Among the colleges in 1976, ten were unionized and there were. 12
patterns of membership described. Those most frequently mentioned
were:
-Librarians and staff belong to separate unions; and classified
staff (non-librarian, non-administrative staff) belong to
unions 4
-All except administration belong to unions 2
Despite the fact that unions were young in comparison to the estab-
lished collegial forums, 34 (14.8 percent) of the 230 libraries respond-
ing to this question in 1981, reported a shift in affiliation from one
union to another. These changes encourage speculation on the cause of
the move. Were expectations unrealistic? When a union did not produce
anticipated results, professionals may have shifted allegiance. In the
1981 questionnaire, participants were asked to identify their former
union. Replies to this request are listed below and ranked according to
the frequency with which each was listed as a "former" union:
EXTERNAL FACTORS
national network crescendo, and finished the decade with the appear-
ance of viable mini and micro-computer systems, that once again made
local automation an opportunity and a challenge. Administrators of aca-
demic libraries faced automation choices that would have been called
make-or-buy decisions in an industrial setting. Many elected to buy from
OCLC, RL[N or others. Some, like the University of Chicago, North-
western, or Virginia Polytechnic, chose to make. In the areas of circula-
tion there was considerable buying from turnkey vendors as well as the
creation of local systems, in cooperation with campus computing facili-
ties.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
Table 11
NO. o f Replies
Group 1976 1981
Board of Trustees
Supervisor o f the L i b r a r y Director
o one'
Faculty o r Campus Assembly
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
~ a t a l ~
a . This i s a count of those who a c t u a l l y s a i d , "none," and does not include those who
SUMMARY
22.7 percent in 1981. Far fewer libraries reported committees that made
decisions, as opposed to those that made recommendations, but even the
latter were dropping in numbers. Participants described the influence
that persons or groups other than library staff had on library policy.
Analysis of comments and replies indicates a slight downward trend in
the share of library decisions made by outsiders (75.7 percent said, "no
change in the last five years," in 1976; and 82.7 percent in 1981). The
effect of external input on the actual power of the library director appar-
ently changed very little, with similar percentages reporting that he or
she had more and had less decision-making control than had been the
case five years earlier.
Fewer directors reported directly to their institutional chief executive
officer (usually the president) in 1981 than had been the case in 1976. In
addition, fewer reported to the chief academic officer. Director longev-
ity was surveyed across the study period and this data can be summa-
rized by saying that although there were 836 libraries in the sample,
there were 553 instances of director turnover between January of 1970
and March of 1981. This, in spite of the fact that 331 institutions re-
ported there had been no new director appointed in that period.
Two year colleges provided the most stable environment for directors
(41.4 percent reported no turnover). One sub-set of the universities, the
institutions with membership in the Association of Research Libraries,
proved to be the most volatile in terms of executive turnover. Among
these ARL libraries, only 27.7 percent said they finished the period with
the same director who had been in office at the start. Since the ARL in-
stitutions prepare so many faculty members and library directors who
eventually pursue their professional careers in other colleges and univer-
sities, these administrative environments seem especially significant to
the future of all academic librarianship.
Even though this study used purposive sampling techniques and thus
the data cannot be generalized to all academic libraries in the United
States, the patterns are so strong in many of the cases that it would be
difficult to deny they do not extend beyond the segment of the popula-
tion in the study. There are certain conclusions which can be drawn, for
56 J O U R N A L O F LJBRARY ADMINISTRATION
4) What is the actual role of the internal library committee, and what ef-
fect will this have on administration? 5) Is the rate of director turnover
in college libraries increasing? Why? 6) What is the future of participa-
tory management in academic libraries in the 1980s? 7) How do these
factors relate to the quality of service provided for the library's parent
institution?
In 1973, McAnnaly and Downs said,
In the 1960s . . . an increasing number of incidents occurred
which indicated that all was not well in the library directors' world
. . . in one year, 1971-72, the seriousness of the situation became
dramatically evident: seven of the directors of the Big Ten libraries
(plus the University of Chicago) left their posts, only one a normal
retirement for age.'"
Apparently very little has changed. In the spring of 1983, as this report
was being completed, there were three directorships open in ARL li-
braries, in which the incumbents resigned under pressure, not because
of a "better job" offer, or, to use the McAnally and Downs terminology,
because of a "normal retirement for age." Another director, who inter-
viewed for ten directorships in early 1983 (and received five offers), re-
ported that in one case the previous director had died, one chose to re-
tire, and all the others stepped down because of dissatisfaction on the
part of the staff, administration, or faculty with his or her management
of the library. This is a serious problem, and is costly in terms of per-
sonal unhappiness, organizational upheaval, and financial loss to insti-
tutions. Knowing the "why" issues would surely benefit the profession
and perhaps, prevent further instances of undesired turnover in libraries.
Has the profession (or at least its administrative contingent) learned
nothing since 1973? This study has tried to identify and quantify some
factors affecting answers to the questions just outlined. What is needed
now is adequate funding to support research that will assign values to
these factors, relate them to "good" library service, and assist the pro-
fession in planning wisely for the future.
-
Survey of Academic Library Administration
REFERENCES
I . Kaser. David. "The Effect of the Revolution of 1969- 1970 on University, Library Adminis-
trdtion." In Academic Libraries by the Year 2000: Essays Honoring Jerrold Orne, edited by
Herben Poole. Ncw York. R. R. Bowker Co.. 1977, p. 64.
2 . Ibid.. D. 66.
3. Allison, Anne Marie. Facror~Affcring Admimbrisrration in Uniled Srales Academir Libraries
Daring the Period 1971-75. Occasional Papers. No. 138. Champaign, II., University of Illinois.
Graduate School of Library Science. 1979, p. 3.
4. Ibid.
5 . Ibid.. p. 2.
6. Ibid.. p. 5 .
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
7. Depannlent of Health. Education, and Welfare. Education Division. College and University
Libraries. Fall 1977; Dala Base. H E G . U B I 2 . Edition A77-78. Washington. D.C.. National Cen-
ter for Educational Statistics. 1978.
8. Depanment of Health. Education, and Welfare. Education Division. College and University
Libraries, Fall 1977; Dala Base Documerrrarion. Washington, D.C., National Center for Educa-
tional Statistics. 1.978. p. M)I I.
9. Ibid.
10. Allison, op.cit.. p. 27.
II.Dillman. Don A. Mail and Telephone Survey: the Total Design Merhod. New York, John
Wiley & Sons. 1978.
12. Data Base Documentation, opsit.
13. McAnally. Anhur. and Downs. Roben B. "The Changing Role of Directors o f University
Libraries." C o l l e ~ e& Research Libraries. 34:103, March 1973.
14, Booz. Allen, and Hamilton, Inc. Organization and Stoflng of the Libraries of Columbia
Universit~:A Case S t u b . Westpon. Ct.. Redgrave Information Resources Corp., 1973, p. 8.
15. Drucker, Pcter F. M a n a ~ e m m l :Tasks. Responsibilities, Practices. New York. Harper &
Row, 1973. pp. 618-19.
16. Powell. Benjamin E. "Development of Libraries in Southern State Universities to 1920."
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago, 1946, p. 16.
17. Rogers. Rutherford D., and Weber. David C. Universiry Library Adminisrralion. New
York, H.W. Wilson, 1971, p. 13.
18. Smith. Barbara J. "The Impact of the Community College on Academic Libraries and Li-
brarians." The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 3:340, January. 1978.
19. MRAP (Management Review and Analysis Program) and ALDP (Academic Library Devel-
opment Program) are assisted self-study programs developed by the Council on Library Resources.
MRAP focuses on larger inslitutions, while ALDP was developed for small or mid-sized academic
libraries. The program i s described in Edward R. Johnson and Stuart H. Man. Organization Devel-
opmenr for Academic Libraries. Westpon, Ct.. Greenwood Press. 1980.
20. For example. Dennis Reynolds ciles figures of 72.8 to 89.6 percent in his chapter. "A Sur-
vey of Libraries in American Four-Year Colleges," I n College Librarianship, edited by William
Miller and Stephen Rockwood. Metuchen, N.J., The Scarecrow Press, 1981, pp. 20-21. ACRL
conducted a survey in 1981 which revealed 75.4 percent had some son of faculty status. See Asso-
ciation of College and Research Libraries. Academic Status Survey. Chicago, ACRL, 1981.
21. A convincing case is made by Cieslicki for "librxian" status, which may enable librarians
to attain most of the objectives of the ACRL standards without creating the barriers raised by seek-
ing "faculty" status. See Cicslicki, Dorothy H. "A New Status Model for Academic Librarians."
The Journal o/Academic Librarianship. 8230-81, May 1982.
22. McAnally, op.cit.. p. 103.