NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
ERIC Number: ED247944
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1984-May
Pages: 27
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: 0
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
Administrators' Views of Librarian Personnel Status: The Complete, Original Report.
English, Thomas G.
College & Research Libraries, v45 n3 p189-95 May 1984
Questionnaires were sent to the office of academic affairs or its equivalent in each of the 89 U.S. academic members of the Association of Research Libraries to elicit the opinions of non-library university administrators on the issue of faculty status for academic librarians. Data gathered from 32 state institutions and 15 private institutions (53%) are reported in tables and text for the following: (1) comparison of faculty and non-faculty librarians' benefits and privileges; (2) actual and perceived advantages to the institution of granting librarians faculty status; (3) perceived disadvantages of faculty status; (4) appropriate classifications of librarians; (5) difficulties with tenure requirements; and (6) librarian satisfaction. Based on an analysis of the data collected, it was concluded that academic institutions may lack a clear rationale for granting librarians faculty status. This conclusion was based primarily on the fact that the opinions expressed by administrators tended to confirm the validity of two key suppositions: there are no substantive advantages to an institution of granting librarians faculty status, and the terms and conditions of faculty appointments are largely unsuited to the day-to-day activities and responsibilities of librarians. Direct quotations from administrator's statements are included, and a discussion of the halo effect produced by granting faculty status to librarians is appended. (THC)
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Audience: Administrators; Media Staff; Practitioners
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Faculty Status; Halo Effect
Note: When this report appeared as a journal article, 11 of the original 14 tables, 5 of 8 references, and all 3 appendices were omitted.