next »

[steven bell]

Well, our profession will continue to go round and round on this one. In the academic librarianship course I teach at Drexel U. we debate this issue (I give them Blaise Cronin's classic one page article on tenure from a few years back in LJ - never read it? Go do so immediately - but if you support tenure for librarians - you probably won't like what he has to say - he roasts the idea).

I tend to sit on the fence on this one as do academic institutions (about half have it and half don't). I think the big positive is having a more prominent role in governance - although many tenured faculty don't even bother to participate once they secure tenure. Better pay or rights to sabbaticals are a plus. If we act sensibly I doubt many of us will ever encounter situations where we need the protections of academic freedom (historically the reason for tenure). I think if we didn't have tenure we wouldn't see nearly as much needless article and journal proliferation in librarianship. It also seems to stifle creativity in situations where the type of research and professional development a librarian wishes to pursue is frowned upon because it doesn't adhere to traditional scholarship standards (publishing in a peer review journal). It has also been argued that librarians need tenure to achieve equality with faculty or to gain their respect. I just don't buy that. Faculty will respect you based on what you accomplish (for them mostly) - and perhaps not even then - tenure or no tenure. I think it is misguided to think that the tenure label assures equality (I think it was Dick DeGennaro who said something to the effect of "tenure or not, librarians will always be second-class citizens in higher education" and it wasn't an insult - just what he thought was the truth).

Having been involved in a few tenure cases as an external reviewer I am always amazed by the volume of the dossiers and the vast amount of time that is spent by librarians and administrators on the pursuit of tenure. Is this really the best way to use our time when our user communities are off doing their research on search engines and otherwise struggling to figure out how to use our resources. I tend to think not.

The good thing about this debate is that if you really believe librarians should have tenure - you can go work for an institution that offers tenure track position - and then do what you must to get tenure. If you don't think its necessary - then go work where there is no tenure track. It's nice to have a choice.

[%sig%]

[John]

No.

[%sig%]

[Huntingdon College]

Absolutely.

I confess I have not yet read every response that has been posted to this question, so pardon any reiteration of points already made.

I'm at an insitution where all librarian (MLS) positions are tenure-track.  I could not disagree more with Ms. Carver's opinion that tenure isn't relevant to the role of an academic librarian.  Actually, in my reading of her thoughtful essay, I would say that she argues against her own point.  At the conclusion of her piece she states that considering the rapidly changing environment of our profession, librarians need to rethink their responsibilities and roles, and tenure could hamper this, since librarians with tenure do not have the same incentives to adapt to change as those without tenure.  As a librarian who has had tenure for about fifteen years, I can safely state that tenure has not in the least hampered me from being flexible and responsive to changes in the profession.  Why?  Because I'm a professional librarian.  I consider being responsive to change an inherent necessity.  I simply don't see the corollary here.  Wouldn't, couldn't this argument be used against awarding tenure to classroom faculty?  Isn't this the basis of the on-going discussion about the need for post-tenure reviews on our campuses- as an "incentive" against complacency among tenured members of the faculty?

Ms. Carver early in her essay states that the protection of academic freedom awarded by tenure doesn't apply to librarians.  I'm a little unclear on the reasoning presented, but  my interpretation of her rationale is that the tenents of the Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statement are sufficient for librarians, and that since librarians are merely collecting possibly controversial material and not producing it, they face no personal threats.  I wish that were true.  Frankly, of all the members of a campus community I think we (librarians) may need this protection the most.  First, academic freedom is not awarded only to those faculty with tenure.  My understanding has always been that this is a tenent of the academy.  Tenure just offers greater protection.  It would be nice to say that all college and university administrators understand and respect the Library Bill of Rights and the concept of well-balanced library collections representing a multitude of viewpoints.  Perhaps I'm just paranoid, but I can see a librarian lossing his or her job defending this.  We certainly know that our colleagues in the public and school sectors can and have.  Yes, we have fewer cases of censorhip in  academic libraries but that doesn't mean the threat doesn't exist (I'm writing this thinking of the Banned Books Week displays currently up in our building).  I'm at a religiously-affiliated institution.  I personally have selected material that quite frankly would make some people's heads explode, but it's here because I in my professional opinion believe it to be necessary.  I'm not saying my current administration would ever attempt to remove this material, but I'm glad I have tenure should I ever need to fight someone on this.   I'm convinced that we are at least as susceptible to the risks of defending academic/intellectual freedom as any member of the classroom faculty.

As a library director I can think of a few very practical benefits to tenured librarians, some of which I've experienced, but I'll stop here to keep this contribution from getting even longer.

[%sig%]

[J.R.]

Superficially, the idea of librarians receiving tenure sounds good. They would have equal status with faculty without needing to get a PhD. In addition, they would have job security, provided they can push themselves for six or seven years. However, I see no essential advantages to tenure status.

Deborah Carver points out my main concern, which relates to the pressures of tenure. Potential librarian candidates might not care to seek tenure; they might just want to focus on being good professionals without having to worry whether or not they have a job several years later. This is especially true if a librarian in a tenure-track librarian position is supposed to devote a substantial amount of time to more traditional librarian job duties, as well as tenure-track obligations. If academic library administrators are serious about tenure status, they will ensure that librarians have sufficient time to do original research, resulting in articles and/or presentations that contribute to the profession. Administrators should also set aside sufficient funding so that librarians can travel to fulfill tenure obligations. This is especially true with the relatively low salaries librarians receive. Of course, if non-tenure track librarians want to do the same things as those seeking tenure, I don’t imagine anyone would stop them (although lack of funds and time might).

As both Carver and Catherine Murray-Rust (as well as several posters) mention, academic freedom is important. However, why should this not apply to librarians, regardless of tenure status?  If academic freedom is supposed to protect faculty who address controversial issues, why would librarians not have the same protection? Our profession is very keen on academic freedom (which I assume is protected by something called the First Amendment), and our obligation as librarians is to supply faculty and students with the appropriate resources to do quality teaching and research. Something is obviously wrong with an institution (especially a public institution) that cannot even protect this basic right, and where students and faculty are not “up in arms” if a librarian’s job is threatened because she, well, did her job.

I do agree with Murray-Rust that the idea of the library as “heart of university” is outdated. Any academic librarian who has no clue about the radical changes that have occurred in the profession over the past decade should quit. Still, libraries remain an important component of a university. Libraries may not be the “heart of the university,” but probably they’re at least the spleen or liver (maybe libraries are actually the brain, but that’s a bit presumptuous). As “steven bell” points out in his post, librarians should be recognized for their strengths, whether they are traditional services and resources, or more innovative conceptualizations of information.

Indeed, we should not take comfort in the library as the university’s “heart.” However, when thinking about changes that have occurred in academia recently, why should “tenure” remain sacred? With change occurring rapidly in scholarly communications, even traditional notions of “tenure” start to seem as quaint as the idea of the library being the “heart of the university.” Faculty might not be able to publish their research in traditional modes of scholarly communication, such as journals from established publishers, since they are more finite in size and content (though they seem more infinite in price). In this scenario, faculty who have not achieved tenure are particularly vulnerable. However, contributions to open access repositories, especially those with some form of peer review, seem like a more viable and realistic option for everyone involved.

Murray-Rust expresses concern that librarians will not become “true peers” of the faculty unless they have the same status. However, since most librarians do not have a Ph.D., tenure-track and tenured faculty might feel some resentment since they were actually required to get a Ph.D. for their positions.

In the end, tenure status does not matter for librarians. It merely implies that librarians would need to do work for which sufficient time and money might not be available. Instead of tacking “tenure” status to librarian positions, we need to focus on our strengths as librarians, information providers, or whatever we want to think of ourselves. Also, what we do with the status we’re given is the primary concern; it doesn’t matter if we have tenure or “faculty status,” or if we even decide to create a status that transcends both. (Looking at Murray-Rust’s article, she discusses “faculty status” towards the end. Oddly enough, the word “tenure” appears nowhere in the second half of the article.) If we can focus on our past, present, and future strengths (while paradoxically practicing a bit of modesty), we will gain substantial respect from the broader university community. Tenure status for librarians will also become a moot point.

[%sig%]

[Ibironke Lawal, VCU, Richmond]

Definitely. Librarians are important publics in academe. Apart from their professional roles, they teach and mentor and offer service to the immediate community as well as the community at large. In addition, they do research and publish.

If we examine the criteria for tenure and promotion at most institutions, there is little difference between those of the librarians and those of the teaching faculty that are on tenure track. Some institutions do give their librarians tenure. I think it should be the same in all institutions. Well, I don't know of any reason they should not be tenured. I  am waiting to be convinced.

[Daniel CannCasciato CWU]

Yes.  Tenure can be a positive part of the professional life of academic librarians.  

To accept the argument that librarians don't need academic freedom protection implies that there are never political motivations in library administration and decision making.  In my experience, though, a librarian can make comments or publish articles on different types of issues that could be used to create a negative impact on his/her worklife and limit professional growth.  For example, there can be internal issues (Cf. Sanford Berman) or external ones (e.g., criticism of library-vendor ties) that could have an impact on many types of decisions.  Both tenure and academic freedom protections at the local level (as opposed to the professional statement of an organization) are helpful for evening the situation.  

Tenure requirements also help promote professional participation and scholarship.  Those requirements are also inherently rewarded in ways that, often, the non-tenure track folks never see.  It would be an interesting study to compare the professional participation of academic librarians based on their status.  

Lastly, tenure is good for recruitment and retention.  It's a very positive component of a position and, at least in my experience, enhances the professionalism of librarianship.  It's not a distraction.

Overall, though, a committment from an institution to continue employing you for the rest of your academic career is more motivation to contribute to the institution than it is an excuse to atrophy.

[Larry Creider, NMSU]

My experience leads me to the conclusion that Carver is wrong on the need for tenure for librarians and on its effect on the position of librarians in dealing with faculty.  I earned a Ph.D. in Medieval Studies before working in a library and then going to library school.  After working for 16 years in a research university without faculty status or tenure, I moved to a land grant research university where I eventually received tenure and became an associate professor.   As a technical services librarian without faculty status and tenure,  I felt I was a third class member of the university, not second class.  I was disadvantaged in dealing with faculty, even former classmates in my graduate program who had become professors at the same institution where I worked.  However, the library seemed to value my academic background, and supported my involvement in professionall activities.  I started a few research projects but finished none while working at that institution.    
In my current position, I have had to research and publish.  As a tenure-track faculty member, I have been involved in university-wide committees and treated as an equal.  This year I am serving as chair of our faculty senate.   I do a better job here of thinking about how my work fits in with the mission of the university, and I have a freedom to choose directions for my research that I think benefits both the institution and myself.   I don't think my experience is unique, and I have seen the respect given to my colleagues by faculty in other fields.  Over the years, I think that the demands of tenure have improved the quality of the research published in library science journals, although there is a lot to be done.

[John D. Berry]

Having worked under both a "Tenure" & "Non-Tenured," campus, I'd have to say so far there is not that big a difference.  In both venues Librarians are treated by the majority of the "Teaching Faculty," as second class citizens.

One big drawback on the "Tenured" campus was the expectation to work a 40 hr. week, with a 12 month contract AND meet the Tenure requirements.

Digressing just a bit from the Non-Tenured stance, the author says;
"...librarians are also expected to maintain neutrality with respect to political, moral, or aesthetic views."

She must not pay any attention to ALA's governance.

John D. Berry, Assoc. Librarian, UC Berkeley
ALA Councilor at Large, 2001-2004

[J.R.]

In his posting, Steven Bell refers to Blaise Cronin's 2001 article that "roasts" tenure for librarians. Here's a citation for it:

Cronin, Blaise. 2001. "The Mother of All Myths." Library Journal, Volume 126, Issue 3: p. 144.

I didn't get a chance to read it until today. It is indeed very pithy, and it makes some excellent points about the disadvantages of tenure status for librarians. I also agree with his point (which I did not consider in my posting Wednesday) that adjunct faculty aren't even considered for tenure. By extension, that principle could apply to any other non-faculty position in an academic community. Why should librarians be considered exceptions?

I also like his comments about the publication of "forgettable articles," which become part of "bloated dossiers." Quite frankly, it seems like I encounter quite a number of dull articles that speak about a "revolutionary" or "new" idea in library and information science... even though hundreds of blurringly similar articles have already been written on the same topic. The first thing that comes to my mind is, "This person must have been seeking tenure."

Let's face it, there are librarians who might not be meant to publish. However, within their own institutions, they might be esteemed reference librarians, catalogers, instruction librarians, collection development librarians, etc. I suppose this could be analogous to faculty who do not publish much, but they receive awards for "excellence in teaching. Unfortunately, according to some articles I have read (the citations escape me at the moment), teaching excellence has little or nothing to do with guaranteeing tenure for those faculty. It would be a pity if good librarians couldn't keep their jobs just because they couldn't crank out enough "forgettable articles" to gain tenure.

I think the advice Cronin gives towards the end of his article should guide librarians towards gaining respect from our colleagues in academia; we should just "do a good job and the results will speak for themselves."

[%sig%]

[Prometheus]

I am a full-time assistant professor at an institution that does not have tenure, and I love it.  I think not having tenure is the very best way to run an institution of higher education (the AAUP be damned!).  We have five-year renewable contracts.  I just went through  my first review and was given a five-year contract.  In five years, I go through the process again.  I must admit, it keeps you on your toes knowing that (unlike a tenure review) it will happen again and that you cannot rest on your laurels.

Thus, I do not think faculty should get tenure.  I do not think anyone should; that includes librarians.

[Barbara Fister]

A lot of the discussion here seems to revolve around two dichotomies.

Tenure is good (so is good for librarians) OR
Tenure is bad (so is bad for librarians)

AND

Librarians will get more respect if tenured OR
Librarians will never get any respect, so why go to all that trouble?

I believe tenure to have value - not as a comfy perk for those who pass the test, but for society that needs the fruits of scholarship as unfettered as possible by non-scholarly predjudice. It is a huge privilege and one we should take seriously. Adopting Boyer's notion of what constitutes scholarship might help, as would paying attention to John Ziman's exhortation in his essay “Is Science Losing its Objectivity?” (Nature v.382, 1996: 751-754).

On the other matter, I think the multifaceted word "status" has misdirected the issue somewhat for librarians. It isn't a matter of higher or lower status, but whether one is employed under one type or another of contract. Whether or not librarians get respect is really irrelevant, in my mind. Under what conditions we can do our best work is the issue. And I believe tenure to be a helpful condition.

Barbara

[J.R.]

Here's a citation for an article that exmaines both sides of the issue, although it focuses on the broader concept of "faculty status":

Hoggan, Danielle Bodrero. 2003. "Faculty Status for Librarians in Higher Education" Libraries and the Academy 3.3: 431-445

It is available through the Project Muse database.

She discusses the definition of faculty status for academic librarians, then lists advantages and disadvantages. Although the number of advantages (10) slightly outnumbers disadvantages (8), the disadvantages section actually has twice as many words (if my "Word Count" tool is not deceiving me).  

One might assume that the advantages of faculty status are straightforward and require little justification, especially since they slightly outnumber disadvantages (at least as outlined by Hoggan). On the other hand, the disadvantages tend to be lengthier and supported by more substantial arguments.

I think Hoggan's article does an excellent job of discussing the major issues surrounding librarian faculty status and tenure. But then, the article favors my position (intentionally or not), so I'm a little biased. Still, the clarity with which Hoggan outlines the issues on both sides is a nice alternative to the more partisan missives on the topic (including my own).

[%sig%]

[senior prof]

tenure is for those who teach.

librarians are nothing more than part of the university staff.  Is anyone out there recommending tenure for other staff such as office secretaries or the groundskeepers?

[T. Raffensperger, Vermont Tech]

Interesting comment from "senior prof"  on 10/31 who says that "tenure is for those who teach". We have librarians here who teach six classes per week. How many do you teach, "senior prof"?

I'm being somewhat disingenuous here, in that I beleive tenure is only necessary for librarians with lead responsibility for collection development. The purpose of tenure is academic freedom, and our collecting activities need to be free from bias or political pressure. Even our small library has had strong complaints about the content of some of our acquisitions.

[%sig%]

[PhD scholar and librarian]

It is that kind of smugness that is living proof of the need for well-qualified candidates to become tenured librarians. I do not think that being a librarian should make one eligible for automatic tenure, but I know that some of us who have achieved a lot in both library science and scholarship - yes we exist - chose to be librarians because of the smugness of mediocre scholars who find it necessary to patronise others to make themselves feel good.  Tenure is a must, but only for those qualified to lead.  Perhaps the "senior prof" feels bitter about his lack of success. Oh well ...