The Faculty Subculture, the Librarian Subculture, and Librarians’ … · 2017-05-25 · William H. Walters 819 police, or punk) can be defined in contrast to the culture of the

William H. Walters 817

portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 16, No. 4 (2016), pp. 817–843. Copyright © 2016 by Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 21218.

The Faculty Subculture, the Librarian Subculture, and Librarians’ Scholarly ProductivityWilliam H. Walters

abstract: This study examines the influence of four predictor variables—university-wide research activity, faculty status (eligibility for sabbaticals), university control (public versus private), and enrollment—on the scholarly productivity of librarians at research universities in the United States. University-wide research activity is directly related to librarians’ scholarly productivity, although the relationship weakens at institutions with more than 30 librarians. In contrast, faculty status has a direct influence that is strong and consistent across all university sizes. These results suggest that the faculty subculture, by setting university-wide expectations for research, influences librarians’ scholarly productivity only when there is no strong librarian subculture with its own research norms—in other words, only when the institution employs relatively few librarians. Librarians’ faculty status (or nonfaculty status) appears to have both formal aspects (such as promotion requirements), which are consistent across all university sizes, and informal aspects (such as scholarly norms and expectations), which moderate the influence of the faculty subculture at those institutions where the librarian subculture is strong.

Introduction

Roughly half of all American four-year colleges and universities count librar-ians as faculty rather than as administrative or professional staff.1 Although the reasons for granting faculty status vary with local circumstances, a widely

Active involvement in scholarship can help improve librarians’ sub-ject knowledge, keep them engaged with the research literature, give them a better understanding of empirical research methods, and build professional affinity between librarians and regular faculty.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.

The Faculty Subculture, the Librarian Subculture, and Librarians’ Scholarly Productivity818

acknowledged goal is to ensure that librarians remain active as both consumers and pro-ducers of scholarly work. Active involvement in scholarship can help improve librarians’ subject knowledge, keep them engaged with the research literature, give them a better understanding of empirical research methods, and build professional affinity between librarians and regular faculty. Such involvement can also ensure that practice-oriented topics and perspectives are adequately represented within the literature of library and information science (LIS). Moreover, research-active librarians may be especially well suited to the work of building collections, assisting in the development of new courses and reading lists, participating in strategic planning and assessment initiatives, provid-ing research consultations to faculty and graduate students, developing specialized instructional materials, and helping faculty understand the full potential of the library’s collections and services.2

Using data for 124 institutions, this study examines the influence of four predictor variables—university-wide research activity, faculty status (represented by eligibility for sabbaticals), university control (public versus private), and university enrollment—on the scholarly productivity of librarians at research universities in the United States.3 The results are interpreted within the context of the faculty and librarian subcultures. Spe-cifically, four hypotheses are evaluated: (1) university-wide research activity is directly related to librarians’ scholarly productivity; (2) the relationship between university-wide research activity and librarians’ scholarly productivity is strongest at institutions that employ relatively few librarians—presumably, those where the librarian subculture is weak relative to the faculty subculture; (3) faculty status is directly related to librarians’ scholarly productivity; and (4) the relationship between faculty status and librarians’ scholarly productivity is strongest at institutions that employ relatively many librar-ians—presumably, those where the librarian subculture is strong relative to the faculty subculture. These hypotheses are based on the assumption that distinct faculty and librarian subcultures exist, and that the norms of scholarly productivity at each institu-tion may be embedded within the faculty subculture, the librarian subculture, or both. Hypotheses 2 and 4 also draw on the idea that the librarian subculture is strongest (and the faculty subculture weakest in its impact on librarians) at larger universities, where there are enough librarians to develop and maintain a distinct librarian subculture.

The first part of the paper, a literature review, describes the faculty and librarian subcultures, discusses the likely effect of group size on the strength of the librarian subculture, and introduces previous research on librarians’ scholarly productivity. The second part, an empirical analysis, uses institutional data to assess the four hypotheses—to evaluate one possible way in which faculty and librarian subcultures can influence librarians and their work.

Context and Previous Research

Faculty and Librarian Subcultures

Ralph Linton and Frederic M. Thrasher were among the first authors to explore the concept of subculture—the values, norms, and behaviors associated with a particular group within a society.4 A subculture (for example, cosplay, grunge, hacker, military,

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


police, or punk) can be defined in contrast to the culture of the society as a whole. The characteristics of the subculture emerge from the interactions among group members and thereby reinforce the identity of those within the group.5 However, each subculture is not a set of individuals, but a set of norms and values. An individual may identify with a subculture (or with multiple subcultures) to a greater or lesser extent, or in ways that vary in response to short- and long-term changes in his or her situation.

Burton Clark and Martin Trow’s classic study, one of the first to examine subcultures within the realm of higher education, identified four student subcultures: academic, col-legiate, vocational, and nonconformist.6 More recent studies have investigated the faculty subculture, identifying common elements that transcend disciplinary and institutional differences: devotion to the discovery and transmission of knowledge, respect for evi-dence, insistence on individual autonomy, support for academic freedom, orientation toward an academic discipline rather than a particular university, and responsibility to the international community of scholars.7 Among faculty, more specialized affiliations can be identified on the basis of academic discipline and institutional type.8

Within the university, it is also possible to identify other academic and administrative subcultures that share only some characteristics with the dominant faculty subculture.9 Each subculture may be distinct in its commitments, priorities, values, and assumptions, especially if it corresponds to a recognized profession that aims to strengthen its own professional identity. Studies of academic librarians’ characteristics and perspectives sug-gest that the librarian subculture differs from the faculty subculture in several important ways. In comparison with most faculty, librarians tend to exhibit

• a fundamental orientation toward service rather than investigation and discov-ery;10

• stronger institutional loyalties and weaker ties to the academic disciplines;11

• a greater concern for teamwork, coordination of activities, and institutional needs;12

• a tendency to concentrate on processes rather than outcomes;13

• a view of teaching that focuses on short-term interaction rather than course design and assessment;14

• an “overemphasis on generalist skills and a reluctance to gain . . . expert knowl-edge”;15

• lower levels of educational attainment and a more limited knowledge of scholarly methods;16 and

• weaker identification with their role as academics, perhaps due to a relatively short and incomplete socialization process.17

Service is central to the work of academic librarians. In contrast, most faculty regard service as considerably less important than either teaching or research.18 Another key difference is that many librarians see research as something separate from their day-to-day work. The “passion for writing” that charac-terizes many university faculty is not often

Service is central to the work of academic librarians. In contrast, most faculty regard service as considerably less important than either teaching or research.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


shared by librarians, whose “real lives are perhaps lived elsewhere than on the page.”19

Bill Crowley, one of the first authors to differentiate between faculty and librarian subcultures, has pointed out that the academic system and the library subsystem are not always well aligned. Academic librarians are sometimes reluctant to earn doctorates, for instance, because it is the library subsystem, not the academic system, that determines which characteristics and behaviors will be rewarded. “The library subsystem sets the rules of the competition; intelligent players work the rules to their advantage. The library subsystem, with programmed regularity, thus sustains educational and other norms that differ substantially from those of the teaching faculty.”20 Likewise, Janet Swan Hill has characterized the subculture of librarianship as a minority culture within the university: “Faculty librarians use the language and system of the majority culture and interpret it as best they can in ways that are relevant to librarianship.”21

Group Size and the Librarian Subculture

There is reason to believe that the strength of a subculture is related to the size of the broader local population (for example, the faculty and staff at a particular university) as well as the size of the group that identifies with the subculture (the librarians at a particular university). Louis Wirth observed more than 80 years ago that large cities tend to weaken traditional social relationships—the ties among members of an extended family, for instance—and to encourage the development of groups based on common interests, backgrounds, and perspectives: “It is largely through the activities of the voluntary groups . . . that the urbanite expresses and develops his personality, acquires status, and is able to carry on the round of activities that constitute his life-career.”22 Wirth linked the formation of subcultures to the size, density, and heterogeneity of the broader population, focusing on the negative aspects of social isolation and the need to combat those tendencies through the formation of interest groups.

Adopting a somewhat different approach, Amos H. Hawley emphasized the advan-tages associated with the proximity of individuals who share common perspectives. He noted, in particular, that urban population centers offer “easy availability of like-minded associates for support in norm-following behavior” as well as opportunities for “selective association [based on] compatibility of values and motives.”23 This line of research has been extended by such authors as Claude S. Fischer, who argue that local concentrations of individuals with similar characteristics and interests tend to increase the number, dis-tinctiveness, and intensity of subcultures.24 Subsequent work has supported this view. For instance, Robert L. Boyd used data on Black musicians to demonstrate that a subculture becomes likely to emerge only when the number of individuals who identify with the group reaches a local threshold level or critical mass “sufficient to generate and support certain activities and institutions that would otherwise be unviable . . . by intensifying the group’s unique identity and/or by strengthening its cultural institutions.”25

Unfortunately, previous studies offer no clear guidance regarding the minimum number of individuals needed to sustain the librarian subculture at a particular insti-tution. The question has not been investigated directly, and recent studies of student subcultures have used aggregate data from multiple institutions; they provide no op-portunity to determine the minimum group size needed to sustain a subculture at any

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


one university.26 However, a study at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, revealed that a nonconformist subculture representing 7 percent of the student population can be detected within a college of 925 undergraduates.27 This suggests that the minimum group size, at least among students, is no larger than 65.

Librarians’ Scholarly Productivity

Librarian authors account for 23 percent of the LIS literature, and they contribute roughly two-thirds of the articles published in practice-oriented journals such as College & Research Libraries, the Journal of Academic Librarianship, Library Resources & Technical Services, and portal: Li-braries and the Academy.28 Six-year data for 31 LIS journals suggest that a typical librarian author contributes one peer-reviewed article every 8.3 years.29 The aver-age for all academic librarians is considerably lower than that, however, since many do not publish at all. More generally, the distribution of authorship is strongly skewed; the most prolific authors contribute a high proportion of the literature.30

The requirements for promotion and tenure at American universities suggest that faculty status may account for much of the variation in librarians’ scholarly productiv-ity. Surveys undertaken over the past 25 years reveal that research and publication are especially likely to be required of librarians with faculty status. In 1990, for instance, publication was required for promotion at 31 percent of research universities but at 54 percent of those that granted faculty status to librarians. That is, the universities that granted faculty status were 1.7 times as likely to require publication for promotion.31 Similar ratios have been reported in subsequent years: 1.4 in 1991, 1.5 in 1993, 1.5 in 1998, and 1.2 in 2014.32

These differences in promotion requirements are matched by differences in scholarly productivity. Data for 120 librarians at four-year colleges in the Midwest reveal that those with faculty status are more likely to participate in workshops, courses, and conferences, and more likely to write for publication.33 Likewise, 44 percent of the librarians at Florida colleges and universities—but 78 percent of those eligible for tenure—published at least one book, chapter, or refereed article from 1995 to 2003.34 Further evidence reveals that librarians with faculty status are overrepresented among those who contribute to the LIS literature. Although just half of all American four-year colleges and universities grant faculty status to librarians, librarians with faculty status account for 76 percent of those who published in 23 LIS journals in 2007 and 2009, and for 63 percent of those who published in College & Research Libraries and the Journal of Academic Librarianship from 2000 to 2006.35 Of the 11 most prolific librarian authors in the United States, eight or nine work at universities that grant faculty status to librarians.36 Finally, at least six empirical studies demonstrate that faculty-status universities contribute disproportionately to LIS journals and conferences.37 None of the six studies accounts for the number of librarians

. . . a typical librarian author contributes one peer-reviewed article every 8.3 years. . . .The average for all academic librarians is considerably lower than that, however, since many do not publish at all.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


at each university, however, so we cannot discount the possibility that faculty-status universities are simply larger than the others—that they employ, on average, relatively many potential contributors to the literature.

Separate case studies by Joseph Fennewald and by Richard L. Hart describe how faculty status and other situational factors have helped create a culture of scholarship among the librarians at Penn State University.38 Both authors point out that formal requirements are just part of the reason for the high productivity of Penn State librar-ians—that the culture of scholarship is sustained by both formal and informal support mechanisms, and by the recruitment of librarians who are fully committed to their research responsibilities. As a result, Penn State librarians see scholarly work as a cen-tral component of their work rather than as something separate from their day-to-day activities. The “average” Penn State librarian publishes one item every 1.8 years, and Penn State ranks sixth among U.S. academic libraries in terms of overall contributions to the LIS literature.39

Richard W. Meyer is perhaps the only author to have investigated the relation-ship between university-wide research activity (represented by the relative number of doctoral graduates) and librarians’ scholarly productivity.40 Using 1984–1986 data for members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), Meyer found an inverse as-sociation between the two variables. He and other authors have framed this finding as a causal relationship, in which librarians divert effort toward their own scholarly work and away from activities that might increase the research activity of the university as a whole.41 Meyer’s study has not been replicated, however, so it is not clear whether the relationships identified in the mid-1980s have persisted.

More generally, few studies of librarians’ scholarly productivity have appeared in recent years. Of the 22 works cited in this section, just 7 were published in 2006 or later. The results of this investigation may therefore be especially useful for updating earlier findings.

Hypotheses

Four hypotheses will allow us to indirectly examine the impact of faculty and librarian subcultures on librarians’ scholarly productivity. The first two hypotheses are based on the idea that the faculty subculture of a university will likely influence librarians regard-

less of their faculty status—that both regular faculty and librarians will respond to a culture that either values or does not value scholarly work. We therefore expect to find that (1) university-wide research activity is directly

related to librarians’ scholarly productivity, and that (2) the relationship is strongest at universities that employ relatively few librarians—presumably, those where the librarian subculture is weak relative to the faculty subculture.

. . . the development of a strong librarian sub-culture may require a minimum number of individuals who identify with the subculture (that is, a minimum number of librarians).

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


Although each local librarian subculture is likely to exhibit distinctive character-istics—patterns of communication and acceptable methods of conflict resolution, for instance—this study examines just one aspect of the librarian subculture: faculty status. As previous studies suggest, faculty status tends to foster scholarly productivity. At the same time, the development of a strong librarian subculture may require a minimum number of individuals who identify with the subculture (that is, a minimum number of librarians). We therefore expect to find that (3) faculty status is directly related to librar-ians’ scholarly productivity, and that (4) the relationship is strongest at institutions that employ relatively many librarians—presumably, those where the librarian subculture is strong relative to the faculty subculture.

All four hypotheses are evaluated at the institutional level; data were compiled for the university rather than the individual, and each university is a single case in the regression analyses. It is important to keep in mind that none of the hypotheses offer a true test of the underlying assumptions. For instance, the regressions (described later) do not directly measure the strength of either the faculty subculture or the librarian subculture. Likewise, they do not directly investigate the mechanisms by which either subculture might influence librarians’ scholarly productivity. The analysis itself deals only with the relationships between university-wide research activity, faculty status, and librarians’ scholarly productivity. The explanation of those results within the context of faculty and librarian subcultures relies on the reasonable but untested assumption that the two subcultures guide librarians’ behavior by influencing local standards for research and professional activity.

Methods

The population of interest consists of 203 research universities: the 202 ranked institu-tions in the National Universities category of Best Colleges published by U.S. News & World Report plus the one American ARL university not included in that ranking.42 The sample includes the 124 universities for which faculty status data were available. The sample is closely representative of the population in terms of university-wide research activity, public versus private status, ARL membership, Best Colleges rank, and annual library expenditures.

Ordinary least-squares regression was used to predict librarians’ scholarly productiv-ity (articles per hundred librarians) at the institutional level. (Regression is a statistical technique that examines the nature and strength of the linear relationships between a dependent variable—a phenomenon, situation, or construct to be explained—and one or more independent variables that help explain the dependent variable.) Each analysis incorporates two primary independent variables—university-wide research activity (university research rank) and faculty status (represented by sabbaticals)—along with two covariates, public university (yes or no) and enrollment (thousands). Four separate regressions were conducted: one for all universities (N = 124), one for universities with 1 to 30 librarians (N = 46), one for universities with 31 to 55 librarians (N = 40), and one for universities with 56 to 202 librarians (N = 38). Except as noted, all data were taken from the website of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).43

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


Librarians’ Scholarly Productivity

The dependent variable, articles per hundred librarians, was derived from a content analysis of every article published in any of 31 LIS journals over a six-year period, 2007 to 2012. The 31 journals are those that can be counted among the top 70 in terms of citation impact and also among the top 70 in terms of subjective reputation.44 Authors’ names and affiliations were recorded, allowing the tabulation of totals for individual libraries. Each institutional (library) total was then divided by the number of librarians at the university45 and multiplied by 100 to arrive at articles per hundred librarians. Although some institutions may have reported incorrect librarian counts in the NCES survey,46 there is no evidence of systematic bias.

Harmonic weighting was used to assign credit for coauthored articles. With this method, the credit assigned to each author is 1/i divided by (1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + … + 1/N), where N is the number of authors and i is the author’s place in the byline (1 for first author, 2 for second author, and so on). For example, the first author of a paper with two authors received credit for 0.667 article; the second author received credit for 0.333 article. As Nils T. Hagen has demonstrated, weights calculated in this manner correspond closely to scholars’ subjective assessments of authorship credit.47 Although many studies have used whole counting (giving full credit to each author) or fractional counting (assigning a value of 1 divided by the number of authors), those methods are problematic for a number of reasons. In particular, whole counting inflates the value of articles with more than one author while fractional counting ignores the fact that authors who appear earlier in the byline often make greater contributions than those listed later.48

Unfortunately, articles per hundred librarians does not account for contributions to books or conference proceedings. This is a potentially serious omission because con-ference papers, in particular, are important outlets for the dissemination of librarians’ work.49 The focus on journal articles may be appropriate, however, since articles differ from conference papers in at least three respects: they provide a record of scholarly work that is both permanent and readily discoverable (indexed); they have been selected and improved through a well-defined review process that evaluates the entire work rather than an abstract; and they are generally accepted by promotion and tenure committees as the most compelling evidence of scholarly achievement.50

University-Wide Research Activity

University research rank represents the importance of scholarly work within the faculty subculture of each university. Specifically, it is the institution’s rank among U.S. universi-ties in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) compiled by ShanghaiRank-ing Consultancy.51 Unlike most university rankings, ARWU is based solely on scholarly performance rather than quality of instruction, student satisfaction, employer satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, or reputation. Six factors are taken into account: (1) the number of papers published in journals indexed by Science Citation Index or Social Sciences Cita-tion Index, (2) the number of papers published in Nature and Science, (3) the number of highly cited researchers in each of 21 broad subject categories, (4) the number of staff who have won Nobel Prizes or Fields Medals, (5) the number of alumni who have won Nobel Prizes or Fields Medals, and (6) per capita academic performance, a weighted average of the other five indicators divided by the number of faculty.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


ARWU provides specific ranks for the top 51 American universities, along with rank ranges for institutions ranked 52nd through 146th. Universities with an ARWU rank of “52–65” were assigned a rank of 58.5; “66–78,” 72.0; “79–102,” 90.5; “103–125,” 114.0; and “126–146,” 136.0. The 50 institutions in the sample that do not appear in the ARWU rank-ings—those not among the top 146 U.S. universities—were each assigned a rank of 200.

Librarians’ Faculty Status

Data on librarians’ faculty status were compiled from an August 2015 survey completed by the library deans or directors of every university in the sample. The survey asked about 12 components of faculty status: (1) nominal faculty status, (2) tenure eligibility, (3) professor ranks, (4) peer review, (5) scholarship requirements, (6) faculty senate, (7) other committees, (8) sabbaticals, (9) flexible work schedules, (10) nine-month year, (11) research funds, and (12) faculty-equivalent salaries.

Factor analysis revealed that 9 of the 12 components are closely related and can therefore be represented by a single faculty status index.52 However, the index can be calculated only for the universities that provided valid responses to all nine questions. Moreover, the faculty status question (“Do librarians have faculty status?”) is not the most reliable indicator of true faculty status, since nominal faculty status can be granted without all, or even many, of the associated rights and responsibilities. Fortunately, two components of faculty status—sabbaticals and peer review—can each, individu-ally, represent the set of nine components reasonably well.53 Sabbaticals, used here to represent faculty status, is an especially useful indicator for three reasons: it is meaning-ful in real-world terms; it has no missing values; and it is correlated with most other components of faculty status. Specifically, it is correlated with nominal faculty status, tenure eligibility, professor rank, peer review, scholarship requirements, faculty senate, and research funds at the 0.59 level or better.

The sabbaticals question—“Are librarians eligible for sabbaticals (research or pro-fessional development leaves of one semester or longer)?”—has three possible values:

3. Librarians are eligible for sabbaticals on the same basis as regular faculty, either university-wide or within a particular college or school of the university (chosen by 37 percent of respondents).

2. Librarians are eligible for sabbaticals, but the conditions or requirements differ from those that apply to regular faculty (18 percent).

1. Librarians are not eligible for sabbaticals (45 percent).54

Covariates

To evaluate the independent effects of university research rank and sabbaticals on ar-ticles per hundred librarians, we must account for the other variables likely to influence librarians’ scholarly productivity. However, previous research provides little guidance regarding the choice of control variables (covariates). Although there is a significant body of literature on the factors that influence librarians’ scholarly productivity, most of the relevant variables—educational attainment, professional outlook, and experience with research methods, for instance—are individual rather than institutional characteristics.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


They therefore cannot be included in these regressions, where the unit of analysis is the institution rather than the individual.

After the consideration of several potential covariates,55 public university (yes or no) and enrollment (full-time equivalent enrollment, in thousands) were chosen for inclusion in the regressions. Both are correlated with articles per hundred librarians (r = 0.34 and 0.31, respectively), and both are conceptually and statistically distinct from the other independent variables.

Findings

Descriptive Statistics

Previous research has demonstrated that the distribution of librarians’ scholarly contribu-tions is strongly skewed; the most prolific authors and institutions account for much of the librarian-authored LIS literature.56 As Table 1 shows, the same relationship can be seen in

the distribution of articles per hundred librarians. That is, the skewed distribu-tion persists even when we account for the number of potential authors (librar-ians) at each institution. More than half of the 124 libraries in the sample have values of 5.0 or lower—fewer than five articles per hundred librarians over the six-year study period. At the other end of the spectrum, the most productive 11 libraries (10 percent of those in the

sample) each have values of 30.01 or higher.Table 2 lists the 30 universities with the highest productivity per librarian. The values

for the top few institutions are noteworthy. At Oregon State University in Corvallis and Ohio State University in Columbus, the “average” librarian contributed more than 0.5 article over the six-year period. That value, based on data for 31 prominent LIS journals, presumably represents a much higher number of contributions to the scholarly literature as a whole. (As noted earlier, these data do not account for book chapters, monographs, articles in other journals, or papers in conference proceedings.) Even among the universi-ties shown in Table 2, the foremost institutions have publication rates far higher than the

others. For instance, Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, ranked 12th on the list, has a value only half that of Oregon State University.

Table 2 suggests only a mod-est relationship between librarians’ scholarly contributions and universi-ty-wide research activity. Among the

top 30 universities, the median university research rank is 91st—just slightly better than the median for the sample as a whole (114th). Moreover, just 2 of the 30 universities on

Previous research has demonstrated that the distribution of librarians’ scholarly contributions is strongly skewed; the most prolific authors and institutions account for much of the librarian-authored LIS literature.

University-wide research activity may be related to librarians’ scholarly pro-ductivity, but that relationship is not obvious from the dataThis

mss

. is pe

er rev

iewed

, cop

y edit

ed, a

nd ac

cepte

d for

publi

catio

n, po

rtal 1

6.4.


Table 1.Distribution of research universities based on librarians’ scholarly contributions (N = 124)

Articles per 100 librarians Universities in Percentage in Cumulative category category percentage

0.00 30 24% 24%0.01–5 40 32% 56%5.01–10 19 15% 71%10.01–15 12 10% 81%15.01–20 4 3% 84%20.01–25 5 4% 88%25.01–30 3 2% 90%30.01–35 5 4% 94%35.01–40 1 1% 95%40.01–45 1 1% 96%45.01–50 2 2% 98%50.01–55 1 1% 99%55.01–60 1 1% 100%* The number of peer-reviewed articles in 31 major LIS journals, 2007–2012, per hundred librarians (mean = 8.82; standard deviation = 12.28).

the list, California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Johns Hopkins University, are among the top 20 in terms of university research rank. University-wide research activity may be related to librarians’ scholarly productivity, but that relationship is not obvious from the data shown in Table 2.

In contrast, the influence of faculty status can be seen clearly. Universities that grant sabbaticals (and, by extension, faculty status) dominate the list of the institutions with the greatest number of articles per hundred librarians. (Of the 30 universities shown in Table 2, 4 have values of 1 for sabbaticals; 2 have values of 2, and 24 have values of 3.) Within the entire sample, the average value of articles per hundred librarians is 8.8. It is 3.1, however, for universities with a sabbaticals value of 1; 6.1 for those with a sab-baticals value of 2; and 17.1 for those with a sabbaticals value of 3. Although at least six studies have reported a similar relationship with regard to the total published output of each library,57 this investigation is among the first to show a clear relationship between faculty status and per capita productivity.

Regression Results

The regression coefficients (see Table 3) appear to provide at least conditional support for all four research hypotheses:

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


Table 2.Research universities with the most articles per hundred librarians, within the sample (N = 124)

University Articles per University Sabbaticals† 100 librarians* research rank

Oregon State University, Corvallis 59.7 72 —Ohio State University, Columbus 50.7 40 3Iowa State University, Ames 48.3 72 2Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 46.9 37 3South Dakota State University, Brookings 41.7 200 3Texas A&M University, College Station 38.0 51 3University of Nebraska, Lincoln 34.8 91 3University of Colorado, Boulder 34.5 26 3Colorado State University, Fort Collins 33.5 91 —University of Idaho, Moscow 33.4 200 —University of Illinois, Chicago 31.8 72 3Southern Illinois University, Carbondale 29.9 200 —University of Denver 27.8 200 3Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 26.4 136 —Penn State University, State College 24.0 36 3University of Mississippi, Oxford 21.9 200 3North Carolina State University, Raleigh 20.9 72 —Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 20.8 200 —Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis 20.4 91 —Rutgers University–Newark 15.9 200 —University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 15.9 22 2Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 15.5 34 —University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 15.5 91 3Adelphi University, Garden City, New York 14.3 200 3Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 13.8 114 —Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore 13.3 14 —University of Utah, Salt Lake City 12.4 47 —Utah State University, Logan 12.3 136 —Texas Tech University, Lubbock 11.5 136 —California Institute of Technology, Pasadena 11.4 6 1* The number of peer-reviewed articles in 31 major LIS journals, 2007–2012, per hundred librarians (mean = 8.82; standard deviation = 12.28).† Sabbaticals values are shown only for institutions that agreed to the publication of their data.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


Table 3.Regression results: predictors of articles per hundred librarians, by university size category (number of librarians)

β B SE*

All universities University research rank –0.16† –0.028 0.016 Sabbaticals 0.47† 6.354 1.073 Public university 0.13 3.195 2.348 Enrollment (thousands) 0.07 0.069 0.103 Y-intercept — –3.350 3.596 Adjusted R2 — 0.31 — Standard error of estimate — — 10.168Universities with 1–30 librarians University research rank –0.38† -0.106 0.036 Sabbaticals 0.38† 5.620 1.777 Public university 0.15 4.061 4.130 Enrollment (thousands) 0.14 0.293 0.350 Y-intercept — 11.410 8.563 Adjusted R2 — 0.43 — Standard error of estimate — — 10.658Universities with 31–55 librarians University research rank –0.07 –0.011 0.024 Sabbaticals 0.55† 6.303 1.714 Public university 0.04 1.016 4.101 Enrollment (thousands) 0.15 0.172 0.190 Y-intercept — –8.123 5.832 Adjusted R2 — 0.31 — Standard error of estimate — — 8.822Universities with 56–202 librarians University research rank –0.07 –0.020 0.043 Sabbaticals 0.47† 6.378 2.029 Public university 0.08 1.784 4.711 Enrollment (thousands) 0.20 0.151 0.153 Y-intercept — –6.210 5.160 Adjusted R2 — 0.29 — Standard error of estimate — — 9.845* β is the standardized regression coefficient, B is the unstandardized coefficient, and SE is the standard error. Daggers indicate B values significantly higher or lower than zero at the one-tailed 0.05 level. Neither public university nor enrollment is a significant predictor in any of the four regressions. University research rank has a mean of 120.68 and a standard deviation of 72.17; sabbaticals, 1.92 and 0.91; public university, 0.60 and 0.49; and enrollment (thousands), 20.49 and 13.15.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


1. As expected, university-wide research activity (university research rank) is directly related to librarians’ scholarly productivity (articles per hundred librar-ians). This can be seen in the all-universities regression and in the regression for universities with 1 to 30 librarians. However, university research rank is not a significant predictor for institutions with more than 30 librarians. (Note that because university research rank is reverse-coded—that is, lower ranks represent higher levels of research activity—the negative coefficients indicate a direct rather than inverse relationship.)

2. As expected, the relationship between university research rank and articles per hundred librarians is strongest at institutions with relatively few librarians—presumably, those where the librarian subculture is weak relative to the faculty subculture. The standardized regression coefficient has a magnitude of 0.38 for universities with 1 to 30 librarians but a lower magnitude (0.07) for those with 31 to 55 or 56 to 202 librarians.

3. As expected, faculty status (sabbaticals) is directly related to librarians’ scholarly productivity (articles per hundred librarians). This can be seen in all four regres-sions.

4. For universities with fewer than 56 librarians, the relationship between sabbaticals and articles per hundred librarians is strongest when the number of librarians is high. That is, the regression coefficient is higher for universities with 31 to 55 librarians than for those with 1 to 30 librarians. At the same time, however, the coefficient is lower for universities with 56 to 202 librarians than for those with 31 to 55 librarians.

These conclusions cannot necessarily be taken at face value, however, since the significance tests reported in Table 3 simply test for the existence of nonzero coefficients; they do not allow us to compare differences in coefficients across the four regressions. We therefore cannot evaluate hypotheses 2 and 4, which refer to differences between groups, without further significance testing.58

For university research rank, the additional tests confirm that the coefficient for universities with 1 to 30 librarians is significantly greater in magnitude than the coef-ficient for all universities (one-tailed p = 0.02) and the coefficient for universities with 31 to 55 librarians (one-tailed p = 0.01).59 (The p-value represents the probability that the difference between the two values can be attributed to chance alone.) Hypothesis 2 is therefore supported. For sabbaticals, however, there are no significant differences be-tween any of the four regression coefficients at the one-tailed 0.05 level. For that reason, we must conclude that hypothesis 4 is not supported by this analysis; the relationship between sabbaticals and articles per hundred librarians does not necessarily vary with the number of librarians.

Discussion

The results shown in Table 3 refer specifically to the relationships between university research rank, sabbaticals, and articles per hundred librarians. However, those same results can be interpreted more broadly if we accept the idea that research rank and sabbaticals represent, at least partially, the influence of faculty and librarian subcultures.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


For instance, institutions with high university-wide research activity also tend to have high scholarly productivity among librarians, but only if they employ no more than 30 librarians. This suggests that one particular aspect of the faculty subculture—the impor-tance or unimportance of scholarly work—in-fluences librarians only when there is no strong librarian subculture with its own (conflict-ing or non-conflicting) norms. Caltech, one of the universities listed in Table 2, may pro-vide a good example. Caltech employs just nine librarians, with-out faculty status (sab-baticals = 1), and is notable for the strong research emphasis of its faculty subculture (university research rank = 6).60 Because the librarian group is relatively small—and the librarian subcul-ture presumably limited in its impact—faculty norms have a significant influence on librarians’ behavior. At Caltech, the faculty subculture appears to encourage librarians’ scholarly productivity even in the absence of faculty status. However, we might expect the faculty subculture to have a more limited impact at institutions where the librarian subculture is dominant—those with a relatively large or strong community of librarians.

The regression results further suggest that the relationship between faculty status and librarians’ scholarly productivity is consistently strong; it does not vary with the number of librarians. There are at least two possible explanations for this finding. First, if we assume that faculty status is nothing more than one aspect of the librarian subculture, we might conclude that no particular number of librarians is needed to maintain that subculture. (That would explain why the coefficient for sabbaticals does not increase with library size.) However, the results for sabbaticals and university research rank show that the librarian subculture does have a stronger impact, in relative terms, at the larger universities. This suggests a second interpretation: that librarians’ status—faculty status or otherwise—has both formal aspects (such as the documented requirements for promotion and tenure) and informal aspects (such as the influence of faculty status on the librarian subculture). In this scenario, the formal aspects of faculty status exert a substantial influence on librarians’ scholarly productivity and are unaffected by the number of librarians. That is, the formal aspects of faculty status account for the high sabbaticals coefficients across all four regressions. In contrast, the informal aspects of faculty status do not affect the sabbaticals coefficients. Instead, they reduce the influ-ence of the faculty subculture (university research rank) at institutions with more than 30 librarians. This interpretation is conjectural, of course, but it is supported by earlier research on subcultures—specifically, by the reported relationship between group size and subculture strength.

. . . institutions with high university-wide research activity also tend to have high scholarly produc-tivity among librarians, but only if they employ no more than 30 librarians. This suggests that one particular aspect of the faculty subculture—the importance or unimportance of scholarly work—influences librarians only when there is no strong librarian subculture with its own (conflicting or non-conflicting) norms.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


As noted earlier, some librarians are far more prolific scholars than others. This raises the question of whether faculty status and university-wide research activity influence librarians’ scholarly productivity “across the board” or whether they simply provide a congenial environment for the attraction or development of a few high-performing individuals. Although a systematic analysis is beyond the scope of this study, Table 4 supports the latter explanation. At 9 of the 30 institutions, just one or two librarians account for more than 50 percent of the librarian-authored articles. At four institutions, just one or two librarians account for more than 80 percent.

Conclusion

At American research universities, university-wide research activity and faculty status are both directly related to librarians’ scholarly productivity. The influence of university-wide

research activity is moderately strong among the smaller libraries (those with up to 30 librarians) but does not persist among the larger libraries. In contrast, the relationship between faculty status and librarians’ productivity is strong and con-sistent across all sizes of institutions. One possible explanation for these findings is that the faculty subculture influences

librarians’ scholarly productivity only when there is no strong librarian subculture with its own research norms.

These results further suggest that faculty status has both formal aspects, which are consistent across all university sizes, and informal aspects, which lessen the impact of university-wide research activity (whether positive or negative) at those institutions where the librarian subculture is strong. Overall, these findings are consistent with the existence of a librarian subculture that shares only some of the norms and values of the dominant faculty subculture.61 These results are also compatible with the idea that the strength of the librarian subculture is directly related to the size of the local group that identifies with it.62

The regression results confirm earlier reports that faculty status is a major correlate of librarians’ scholarly productivity. University-wide research activity has a direct but weaker influence—a relationship contrary to that reported by Meyer in 1990.63 These results also confirm that some universities are far more likely than others to employ highly prolific librarians. That is, the right-skewed distribution identified in earlier research (on the basis of articles per library)64 can also be seen when productivity is expressed in terms of articles per hundred librarians.

Further Research

Because this analysis was conducted at the institutional level, it does not account for the factors that influence the scholarly productivity of particular individuals—factors such as educational attainment, professional outlook, and knowledge of research methods.

At American research universities, university-wide research activity and faculty status are both directly related to librarians’ scholarly pro-ductivity.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


Tabl

e 4.

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

enta

ge o

f ar

ticle

s co

ntri

bute

d by

the

five

mos

t pr

olifi

c lib

rari

ans

at e

ach

of t

he 3

0 un

iver

sitie

s with

the

mos

t art

icle

s per

hun

dred

libr

aria

ns

C

umul

ativ

e pe

rcen

tage

con

trib

uted

by

the

1st t

o 5t

h m

ost p

rolifi

c lib

rari

ans

Uni

vers

ity

Num

ber o

f lib

rari

ans

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

, Cor

valli

s 27

13

22

31

38

46

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity, C

olum

bus

75

13

21

28

34

39Io

wa

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

, Am

es

29

29

40

52

60

67Pu

rdue

Uni

vers

ity, W

est L

afay

ette

, Ind

iana

42

34

40

46

51

56

Sout

h D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity, B

rook

ings

12

10

0 10

0 10

0 10

0 10

0Te

xas A

&M

Uni

vers

ity, L

ubbo

ck

78

8 16

21

26

31

Uni

vers

ity o

f Neb

rask

a, L

inco

ln

48

52

64

70

76

82U

nive

rsity

of C

olor

ado,

Bou

lder

62

11

20

30

38

46

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity, F

ort C

ollin

s 22

27

48

62

69

77

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ida

ho, M

osco

w

22

28

44

58

68

77U

nive

rsity

of I

llino

is, C

hica

go

61

13

22

30

37

42So

uthe

rn Il

linoi

s Uni

vers

ity, C

arbo

ndal

e 40

12

23

31

40

48

Uni

vers

ity o

f Den

ver

18

33

60

77

88

95A

ubur

n U

nive

rsity

, Aub

urn,

Ala

bam

a 29

26

39

52

61

70

Penn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

, Sta

te C

olle

ge

143

6 12

17

22

27

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mis

siss

ippi

, Oxf

ord

34

38

65

78

86

90N

orth

Car

olin

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity, C

hape

l Hill

10

3 31

46

55

59

64

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


C

umul

ativ

e pe

rcen

tage

con

trib

uted

by

the

1st t

o 5t

h m

ost p

rolifi

c lib

rari

ans

Uni

vers

ity

Num

ber o

f lib

rari

ans

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

Tabl

e 4.

Con

tinue

d.

Ken

t Sta

te U

nive

rsity

, Ken

t, O

hio

34

35

49

63

77

84In

dian

a U

nive

rsity

-Pur

due

Uni

vers

ity, I

ndia

napo

lis

51

19

33

43

52

62Ru

tger

s Uni

vers

ity–N

ewar

k 23

91

10

0 10

0 10

0 10

0U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

, Tw

in C

ities

87

14

22

29

36

43

Vand

erbi

lt U

nive

rsity

, Nas

hvill

e, T

enne

ssee

61

21

37

51

59

67

Uni

vers

ity o

f New

Mex

ico,

Alb

uque

rque

50

28

41

54

65

74

Ade

lphi

Uni

vers

ity, G

arde

n C

ity, N

ew Y

ork

21

33

67

89

100

100

Brig

ham

You

ng U

nive

rsity

, Pro

vo, U

tah

61

13

25

36

44

52Jo

hns H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

, Bal

timor

e 29

26

52

65

78

91

Uni

vers

ity o

f Uta

h, S

alt L

ake

City

79

20

41

60

70

80

Uta

h St

ate

Uni

vers

ity, L

ogan

29

28

47

66

83

94

Texa

s Tec

h U

nive

rsity

, Lub

bock

52

67

83

10

0 10

0 10

0C

alifo

rnia

Inst

itute

of T

echn

olog

y, Pa

sade

na

9 97

10

0 10

0 10

0 10

0To

p 30

uni

vers

ities

com

bine

d 1,

431

23

34

43

50

56

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


Further research at the individual level would allow us to control for a wider range of covariates and to detect whether university-wide research activity and faculty status have effects that transcend individual differences.

Although this study draws a distinction between faculty and librarian subcultures, it does not directly evaluate either subculture in terms of its essential characteristics, affiliated individuals, group solidarity, or influence. One possible line of inquiry is to empirically identify the two subcultures and to evaluate their characteristics through case studies and organizational research.65 Likewise, there is a need to more clearly differenti-ate between the formal and informal aspects of faculty status. Although Fennewald and Hart’s discussion of the formal and informal mechanisms that sustain scholarly activ-ity has proved useful in explaining the results presented here, the formal and informal aspects of faculty status have not been examined thoroughly.66

This study also tells us relatively little about the mechanisms by which the two key variables influence librarians’ scholarly productivity. For example, university-wide research activity and faculty status may represent requirements (for tenure), incentives (for promotion), material support (such as funding for conference participation), cul-tural factors (such as interaction among research-active librarians), and opportunities for collaboration with scholars inside and outside the library. Although several authors have discussed the importance of institutional support for librarians’ scholarly work,67 none have focused on the link between librarians’ research and that of faculty outside the library.

Implications for Practice

These findings raise the possibility that universities might increase the scholarly produc-tivity of librarians by appointing them as faculty rather than administrative or profes-sional staff. This option is not always feasible, however, since faculty status has major implications for individual and group accountability, long-term expenditures, compensation, recruitment and retention, university governance, the supervision of support staff, and relations with faculty and staff outside the library.68 Moreover, fi-nancial constraints provide administrators with a strong incentive to limit the number of personnel with faculty or tenure-track status.69 Universities may therefore want to consider policies that encourage librar-ians’ research but do not require faculty status or tenure. For instance, the assessment of scholarly work might be undertaken as a standard part of the annual review process. After all, librarians—even those without faculty status—often share many of the respon-sibilities, working conditions, and benefits of regular faculty.70

Arguably, however, there is a more fundamental goal: to bring the librarian subcul-ture into closer alignment with the faculty subculture. This is especially important if we see the library’s mission in terms of scholarship and learning rather than information

These findings raise the possibility that universities might increase the scholarly productivity of librarians by appointing them as faculty rather than administrative or professional staff.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


access. Closer alignment can perhaps be achieved by increasing librarians’ involvement with faculty research projects and regular course instruction, by weakening those aspects of the librarian subculture that conflict with the faculty subculture, and by recruiting librarians who already identify with the faculty subculture due to their experiences elsewhere. At Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, librarians have had the opportunity to switch jobs with regular faculty once every three years, undertaking regular course instruction while their counterparts from chemistry, history, or politi-cal science work in the library.71 Librarians might also be encouraged to think of their work in terms of the research process rather than the procedures needed to maintain the library. For example, Mary Auckland has highlighted the ways in which librarians contribute directly to the generation and documentation of scholarly knowledge. She describes how librarians can help conceptualize new research projects, develop propos-als, identify funding opportunities, seek new information, manage research information, discover and curate data, encourage collaboration, disseminate results, measure impact, and ensure compliance with intellectual property laws.72

The disconnect between faculty and librarian subcultures might also be addressed through changes in the professional education of librarians. While most master of library and information science (MLIS) programs focus on the management of information sys-tems and services, universities are ultimately concerned with scholarship and learning rather than information access and delivery.73 Courses that might provide a stronger socialization experience for academic librarians are often hard to find within the MLIS curriculum. Of the top 12 programs identified by U.S. News & World Report, just two (at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) offer formal specializations in academic librarianship.74 Consequently, new librarians may not know how peer review works, how to interpret a standard deviation, or how the meaning of “primary source” varies from one field to another. They may not be familiar with regional accreditation, with differences in the perceived importance of journals, or with the usual teaching load at the college where they work. An innovative program in academic librarianship might include a subject specialization as well as an academic internship based outside the library; the intern might work on a research team in the

Department of Psychology or help prepare grant applications in the School of Public Health. Although a second master’s degree can pro-vide a degree of familiarity with faculty norms and perspectives, a more intensive research experience (such as a master’s thesis within a multidisciplinary MLIS program) might serve the same purpose at lower cost.

As noted earlier, these social-ization efforts will likely be more effective with some individuals than with others. In that light, we can identify two key questions that merit consideration by both researchers and practitioners. First, do scholarly expectations and faculty status help develop the

. . . is it enough to have some librarians who publish and identify with the facul-ty subculture at a particular university, or are there advantages to an environ-ment in which nearly all the librarians regard scholarly activity as a central component of their work?This

mss

. is pe

er rev

iewed

, cop

y edit

ed, a

nd ac

cepte

d for

publi

catio

n, po

rtal 1

6.4.


research abilities of those who would otherwise not have contributed to the literature, or do they simply attract prolific scholar-librarians to particular universities? If the goal is to generate high-quality research on topics of interest to practitioners, the migration of librarians from one institution to another will not be as helpful as a system-wide increase in productivity. Second, is it enough to have some librarians who publish and identify with the faculty subculture at a particular university, or are there advantages to an environment in which nearly all the librarians regard scholarly activity as a central component of their work? These questions have implications for hiring, for promotion and compensation, and for the broader allocation of resources.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the comments of Esther Isabelle Wilder and the two anonymous portal referees.

William H. Walters is the executive director of the Mary Alice and Tom O’Malley Library at Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York; he may be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

Notes

1. William H. Walters, “Faculty Status of Librarians at U.S. Research Universities,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, 2 (March 2016): 161–71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.002.

2. See Georgina Hardy and Sheila Corrall, “Revisiting the Subject Librarian: A Study of English, Law and Chemistry,” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 39, 2 (June 2007): 79–91; Stephen Pinfield, “The Changing Role of Subject Librarians in Academic Libraries,” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 33, 1 (March 2001): 32–38; Martin Simmons and Sheila Corrall, “The Changing Educational Needs of Subject Librarians: A Survey of UK Practitioner Opinions and Course Content,” Education for Information 28, 1 (2011): 21–44.

3. As described in the “Methods” section, “librarians’ scholarly productivity” refers to the adjusted number of librarian-authored articles that appeared in any of 31 LIS journals over a six-year period (2007–2012). “University-wide research activity” refers to a set of six publication-, citation-, and award-related factors used in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. These terms are not meant to imply a distinction between “scholarly” and “research” or between “productivity” and “activity.” They are intended simply to maintain clarity and consistency when referring to the two variables—to avoid the confusion that might result if any one term (“scholarly” or “research,” “productivity” or “activity”) were used to refer to both the work of the librarians and the work of the faculty throughout the university.

4. Ralph Linton, The Study of Man: An Introduction (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1936); Frederic M. Thrasher, The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927).

5. Gary Alan Fine and Sherryl Kleinman, “Rethinking Subculture: An Interactionist Analysis,” American Journal of Sociology 85, 1 (July 1979): 1–20; J. Patrick Williams, Subcultural Theory: Traditions and Concepts (Malden, MA: Polity, 2011).

6. Burton R. Clark and Martin Trow, “The Organizational Context,” in College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects for Research, ed. Theodore M. Newcomb and Everett K. Wilson (Chicago: Aldine, 1966), 17–70.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


7. Burton R. Clark, The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); Burton R. Clark, The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds (Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987); George D. Kuh and Elizabeth J. Whitt, “Institutional Subcultures,” in The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Colleges and Universities (Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988), 75–93, ERIC Document ED299934; Walter P. Metzger, “The Academic Profession in the United States,” in The Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary, and Institutional Settings, ed. Burton R. Clark (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 123–208.

8. Barbara M. Kehm and Ulrich Teichler, The Academic Profession in Europe: New Tasks and New Challenges (New York: Springer, 2013); Ken Kempner, “Faculty Culture in the Community College: Facilitating or Hindering Learning?” Review of Higher Education 13, 2 (Winter 1990): 215–35; Kenneth P. Ruscio, “Many Sectors, Many Professions,” in Clark, The Academic Profession, 331–68; Paul D. Umbach, “Faculty Cultures and College Teaching,” in The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective, ed. Raymond P. Perry and John C. Smart (New York: Springer, 2007), 263–317.

9. Clark, The Higher Education System; Kuh and Whitt, “Institutional Subcultures”; J. D. Millett, The Academic Community: An Essay on Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962); Anu Puusa, Matti Kuittinen, and Pekka Kuusela, “Paradoxical Change and Construction of Identity in an Educational Organization,” Educational Management, Administration & Leadership 41, 2 (March 2013): 165–78.

10. Nelson R. Beck, “Eclectic Librarianship,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 4, 2 (May 1978): 85; M. Kathy Cook, “Rank, Status, and Contribution of Academic Librarians as Perceived by the Teaching Faculty at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,” College & Research Libraries 42, 3 (May 1981): 214–23; Rachel A. Fleming-May and Kimberly Douglass, “Framing Librarianship in the Academy: An Analysis Using Bolman and Deal’s Model of Organizations,” College & Research Libraries 75, 3 (May 2014): 389–415; Janet Swan Hill, “Wearing Our Own Clothes: Librarians as Faculty,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 20, 2 (May 1994): 71–76; Corey M. Johnson and Elizabeth Blakesley Lindsay, “Why We Do What We Do: Exploring Priorities within Public Services Librarianship,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 6, 3 (July 2006): 347–69; W. Bede Mitchell and Bruce Morton, “On Becoming Faculty Librarians: Acculturation Problems and Remedies,” College & Research Libraries 53, 5 (September 1992): 379–92; Paul Alan Wyss, “Library School Faculty Member Perceptions Regarding Faculty Status for Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 71, 4 (July 2010): 375–88.

11. Mary Biggs, “Sources of Tension and Conflict between Librarians and Faculty,” Journal of Higher Education 52, 2 (March–April 1981): 182–201; Hill, “Wearing Our Own Clothes”; Eldred Smith, “Academic Status for College and University Librarians—Problems and Prospects,” College & Research Libraries 31, 1 (January 1970): 7–13.

12. Fleming-May and Douglass, “Framing Librarianship”; Hill, “Wearing Our Own Clothes”; Julie J. McGowan and Elizabeth H. Dow, “Faculty Status and Academic Librarianship: Transformation to a Clinical Model,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 21, 5 (September 1995): 345–50; Steve McKinzie, “Tenure for Academic Librarians: Why It Has to Go,” Against the Grain 22, 4 (September 2010): 60.

13. McGowan and Dow, “Faculty Status”; Charles E. Slattery, “Faculty Status: Another 100 Years of Dialogue? Lessons from the Library School Closings,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 20, 4 (September 1994): 193–99; Smith, “Academic Status.”

14. Gary Mason Church, “In the Eye of the Beholder: How Librarians Have Been Viewed over Time,” Reference Librarian 37, 78 (2003): 5–24; Catherine Coker, Wyoma vanDuinkerken, and Stephen Bales, “Seeking Full Citizenship: A Defense of Tenure Faculty Status for Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 71, 5 (September 2010): 406–20; Jane Kemp, “Isn’t Being a Librarian Enough? Librarians as Classroom Teachers,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 13, 3 (2006): 3–23; Peggie Partello, “Librarians in the Classroom,” Reference

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


Librarian 43, 89–90 (2005): 107–20; David Peele, “Librarians as Teachers: Some Reality, Mostly Myth,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 10, 5 (November 1984): 267–71; Pauline Wilson, “Librarians as Teachers: The Study of an Organization Fiction,” Library Quarterly 49, 2 (April 1979): 146–62.

15. Beck, “Eclectic Librarianship,” 85; also see Biggs, “Sources of Tension.”16. Joan M. Bechtel, “Academic Professional Status: An Alternative for Librarians,” Journal

of Academic Librarianship 11, 5 (November 1985): 289–92; Biggs, “Sources of Tension”; Bill Crowley, “Redefining the Status of the Librarian in Higher Education,” College & Research Libraries 57, 2 (March 1996): 113–21; Joseph Fennewald, “Research Productivity among Librarians: Factors Leading to Publications at Penn State,” College & Research Libraries 69, 2 (March 2008): 104–16; Hill, “Wearing Our Own Clothes”; Janet Swan Hill, “Constant Vigilance, Babelfish, and Foot Surgery: Perspectives on Faculty Status and Tenure for Academic Librarians,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 5, 1 (January 2005): 7–22; Fred E. Hill and Robert Hauptman, “A New Perspective on Faculty Status,” College & Research Libraries 47, 2 (March 1986): 156–59; Marie R. Kennedy and Kristine R. Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research: A Survey of Attitudes, Involvement, and Perceived Capabilities,” College & Research Libraries 73, 5 (September 2012): 431–48; Jennifer Mayer and Lori J. Terrill, “Academic Librarians’ Attitudes about Advanced-Subject Degrees,” College & Research Libraries 66, 1 (January 2005): 59–73; McGowan and Dow, “Faculty Status”; Catherine Sassen and Diane Wahl, “Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 75, 4 (July 2014): 458–91; Alvin M. Schrader, Ali Shiri, and Vicki Williamson, “Assessment of the Research Learning Needs of University of Saskatchewan Librarians: A Case Study,” College & Research Libraries 73, 2 (March 2012): 147–63; Wilson, “Librarians as Teachers.”

17. Bechtel, “Academic Professional Status”; Crowley, “Redefining the Status”; Hill, “Constant Vigilance”; Heidi L. M. Jacobs, Selinda Berg, and Dayna Cornwall, “Something to Talk About: Re-Thinking Conversations on Research Culture in Canadian Academic Libraries,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 5, 2 (2010): 1–11; Mitchell and Morton, “On Becoming Faculty Librarians”; Sassen and Wahl, “Fostering Research”; Gloriana St. Clair, Rush Miller, and P. Michelle Fiander, “Academic Librarianship and the Redefining Scholarship Project,” Serials Librarian 38, 1–2 (2000): 63–67.

18. Church, “In the Eye of the Beholder”; Cook, “Rank, Status, and Contribution”; Gaby Divay, Ada M. Ducas, and Nicole Michaud-Oystryk, “Faculty Perceptions of Librarians at the University of Manitoba,” College & Research Libraries 48, 1 (January 1987): 27–35; Janet Lawrence, Molly Ott, and Alli Bell, “Faculty Organizational Commitment and Citizenship,” Research in Higher Education 53, 3 (May 2012): 325–52.

19. Ruscio, “Many Sectors,” 360; also see Todd Gilman and Thea Lindquist, “Academic/Research Librarians with Subject Doctorates: Experiences and Perceptions, 1965–2006,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 10, 4 (October 2010): 399–412.

20. Crowley, “Redefining the Status,” 118.21. Janet Swan Hill, “Technical Services and Tenure: Impediments and Strategies,” Cataloging

& Classification Quarterly 44, 3–4 (2007): 154.22. Louis Wirth, “Urbanism as a Way of Life,” American Journal of Sociology 44, 1 (July 1938): 23.23. Amos H. Hawley, “Population Density and the City,” Demography 9, 4 (November 1972):

526.24. Claude S. Fischer, “Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism,” American Journal of

Sociology 80, 6 (May 1975): 1319–41; Claude S. Fischer, “The Subcultural Theory of Urbanism: A Twentieth-Year Assessment,” American Journal of Sociology 101, 3 (November 1995): 543–77.

25. Robert L. Boyd, “Black Musicians in Northern US Cities during the Early 20th Century: A Test of the Critical Mass Hypothesis of Urban Sub-Culture Theory,” Urban Studies 42, 13 (December 2005): 2364, 2369.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


26. Shouping Hu, Lindsey Katherine, and George D. Kuh, “Student Typologies in Higher Education,” in Using Typological Approaches to Understand College Student Experiences and Outcomes, ed. Shouping Hu and Shaoqing Li (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011), 5–15.

27. Jerry Wayne Brown, “Student Subcultures on the Bowdoin Campus” (Brunswick, ME: Bowdoin College, 1969), ERIC Document ED031745.

28. William H. Walters and Esther Isabelle Wilder, “Disciplinary, National, and Departmental Contributions to the Literature of Library and Information Science, 2007–2012,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, 6 (June 2016): 1487–1506, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23448.

29. William H. Walters and Esther Isabelle Wilder, “Worldwide Contributors to the Literature of Library and Information Science: Top Authors, 2007–2012,” Scientometrics 103, 1 (April 2015): 301–27; also see Pamela S. Bradigan and Carol A. Mularski, “Authorship Outlets of Academic Health Sciences Librarians,” Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 80, 2 (April 1992): 188–91; Kathleen E. Joswick, “Article Publication Patterns of Academic Librarians: An Illinois Case Study,” College & Research Libraries 60, 4 (July 1999): 340–49; Debora Shaw and Liwen Vaughan, “Publication and Citation Patterns among LIS Faculty: Profiling a ‘Typical Professor,’” Library & Information Science Research 30, 1 (March 2008): 47–55; Ann C. Weller, Julie M. Hurd, and Stephen E. Wiberley Jr., “Publication Patterns of U.S. Academic Librarians from 1993 to 1997,” College & Research Libraries 60, 4 (July 1999): 352–62.

30. Walters and Wilder, “Worldwide Contributors.”31. John Cosgriff, Donald Kenney, and Gail McMillan, “Support for Publishing at Academic

Libraries: How Much Exists?” Journal of Academic Librarianship 16, 2 (May 1990): 94–97.32. Bonnie Horenstein, “Job Satisfaction of Academic Librarians: An Examination of the

Relationships between Satisfaction, Faculty Status, and Participation,” College & Research Libraries 54, 3 (May 1993): 255–69; Joan M. Leysen and William K. Black, “Peer Review in Carnegie Research Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 59, 6 (November 1998): 512–22; Betsy Park and Robert Riggs, “Status of the Profession: A 1989 National Survey of Tenure and Promotion Policies for Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 52, 3 (May 1991): 275–89; Sassen and Wahl, “Fostering Research.”

33. Judith L. Hegg, “Faculty Status: Some Expected and Some Not-So-Expected Findings,” Journal of Library Administration 6, 4 (Winter 1986): 67–79. No such relationship was found for business librarians, however; see Aubrey Kendrick, “A Comparison of Publication Output for Academic Business Librarians with and without Faculty Rank,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 17, 3 (July 1991): 145–47.

34. Deborah B. Henry and Tina M. Neville, “Research, Publication, and Service Patterns of Florida Academic Librarians,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 30, 6 (November 2004): 435–51.

35. Rickey D. Best and Jason Kneip, “Library School Programs and the Successful Training of Academic Librarians to Meet Promotion and Tenure Requirements in the Academy,” College & Research Libraries 71, 2 (March 2010): 97–114; Quinn Galbraith, Elizabeth Smart, Sara D. Smith, and Megan Reed, “Who Publishes in Top-Tier Library Science Journals? An Analysis by Faculty Status and Tenure,” College & Research Libraries 75, 5 (September 2014): 724–35.

36. Walters and Wilder, “Worldwide Contributors.”37. John M. Budd and Charles A. Seavey, “Characteristics of Journal Authorship by

Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 51, 5 (September 1990): 463–70; Coker, VanDuinkerken, and Bales, “Seeking Full Citizenship”; Jim Gravois, “Poster Sessions, Promotion, and Publishing: Is There a Connection?” Journal of Academic Librarianship 25, 1 (January 1999): 38–43; Amy Hardin and Tony Stankus, “The Affiliations of U.S. Academic Librarians in the Most Prominent Journals of Science, Engineering, Agricultural, and Medical Librarianship, 2000–2010,” Science & Technology Libraries 30, 2 (2011): 143–56; Walters and Wilder, “Disciplinary, National, and Departmental Contributions”; Stephen E. Wiberley Jr., Julie M. Hurd, and Ann C. Weller, “Publication Patterns of U.S. Academic Librarians from 1998 to 2002,” College & Research Libraries 67, 3 (May 2006): 205–16.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


38. Fennewald, “Research Productivity”; Richard L. Hart, “Scholarly Publications by University Librarians: A Study at Penn State,” College & Research Libraries 60, 5 (September 1999): 454–62.

39. Hart, “Scholarly Publications”; Walters and Wilder, “Disciplinary, National, and Departmental Contributions.”

40. Richard W. Meyer, “Earnings Gains through the Institutionalized Standard of Faculty Status,” Library Administration & Management 4, 4 (Fall 1990): 184–93.

41. Danielle Bodrero Hoggan, “Faculty Status for Librarians in Higher Education,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 3, 3 (July 2003): 431–45; Meyer, “Earnings Gains.”

42. U.S. News & World Report, Best Colleges: National Universities Rankings (New York: U.S. News & World Report, 2015), http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities.

43. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), “Library Statistics Program: Academic Libraries Survey, Fiscal Year 2012” (Washington, DC: NCES, 2012), http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/academic.asp.

44. For details, see William H. Walters, “The Research Contributions of Editorial Board Members in Library and Information Science,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 47, 2 (January 2016): 121–46; Walters and Wilder, “Worldwide Contributors”; Walters and Wilder, “Disciplinary, National, and Departmental Contributions.” The 31 journals are the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology; Aslib [Association for Information Management] Proceedings ; College & Research Libraries; Electronic Library; Government Information Quarterly; Health Information and Libraries Journal; Information Processing & Management; Information Research; Information Society; Information Technology and Libraries; Journal of Academic Librarianship; Journal of Documentation; Journal of Information Science; Journal of Informetrics; Journal of Librarianship and Information Science; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology; Journal of the Medical Library Association; Knowledge Organization; Libraries & the Cultural Record; Library & Information Science Research; Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical Services; Library Hi Tech; Library Quarterly; Library Resources & Technical Services; Library Trends; Libri; Online Information Review; portal: Libraries and the Academy; Scientometrics; and Serials Review.

45. NCES, “Library Statistics.”46. The NCES survey instructions ask respondents to report the number of librarians as “the

total FTE [full-time equivalent] of staff whose duties require professional education (the master’s degree or its equivalent) in the theoretical and scientific aspects of librarianship”; see NCES, Fiscal Year 2012 Questionnaire & Instructions (Washington, DC: NCES, 2012), http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/pdf/ACQuestionnaire_FY12.pdf. It is possible, however, that some respondents did not read the instructions carefully, or that they reported the same values compiled for the annual Association of Research Libraries (ARL) survey, which groups librarians together with other professional staff; see ARL, Chart Comparing ARL Statistics Survey and IPEDS [Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System] Surveys (Washington, DC: ARL, 2016), http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/side-by-side-comparison-arl-ipeds-final-2feb2016.xls. Of the 124 universities in the sample, 17 (14 percent) reported identical values for “librarians” and “librarians and other professional staff.” This suggests that up to 14 percent of respondents used their ARL survey data when completing the NCES survey—that the number of librarians is overestimated (and articles per hundred librarians underestimated) for up to 14 percent of respondents.

47. Nils T. Hagen, “Harmonic Publication and Citation Counting: Sharing Authorship Credit Equitably—Not Equally, Geometrically or Arithmetically,” Scientometrics 84, 3 (September 2010): 785–93; Nils T. Hagen, “Harmonic Coauthor Credit: A Parsimonious Quantification of the Byline Hierarchy,” Journal of Informetrics 7, 4 (October 2013): 784–91.

48. Tove Faber Frandsen and Jeppe Nicolaisen, “What Is in a Name? Credit Assignment Practices in Different Disciplines,” Journal of Informetrics 4, 4 (October 2010): 608–17; Peder

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


Larsen, “The State of the Art in Publication Counting,” Scientometrics 77, 2 (November 2008): 235–51; Endel Põder, “Let’s Correct That Small Mistake,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61, 12 (December 2010): 2593–94; Derek J. de Solla Price, “Multiple Authorship,” Science 212, 4498 (May 29, 1981): 986.

49. Kennedy and Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research”; Schrader, Shiri, and Williamson, “Assessment of the Research Learning Needs”; Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Andrew Tsou, Sara Naslund, Alexandra Hauser, Melissa Brandon, Danielle Winter, Cody Behles, and S. Craig Finlay, “Beyond Gatekeepers of Knowledge: Scholarly Communication Practices of Academic Librarians and Archivists at ARL Institutions,” College & Research Libraries 75, 2 (March 2014): 145–61; Andrea A. Wirth, Maureen Kelly, and Janet Webster, “Assessing Library Scholarship: Experience at a Land Grant University,” College & Research Libraries 71, 6 (November 2010): 510–24.

50. Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing”; Susan E. Higgins and Teresa S. Welsh, “The Tenure Process in LIS: A Survey of LIS/IS Program Directors,” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 50, 3 (Summer 2009): 176–89; Park and Riggs, “Status of the Profession”; Sassen and Wahl, “Fostering Research.”

51. ShanghaiRanking Consultancy, “Academic Ranking of World Universities 2015” (Shanghai, China: ShanghaiRanking Consultancy, 2015), http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2015.html.

52. For details, see Walters, “Faculty Status.”53. Ibid.54. The use of university research rank and sabbaticals in the regressions requires the

assumption that there are equal intervals between the values—that, for instance, a research rank of 30 is halfway between 20 and 40, and that a sabbaticals value of 2 is equally distant from 1 and 3.

55. Four potential covariates—ARL membership, Best Colleges rank, library expenditures, and number of librarians—were considered as control variables but ultimately excluded from the regressions. For one thing, none of the four is strongly related to the dependent variable; the correlations between articles per hundred librarians and the four covariates are modest: 0.21 (ARL membership), 0.06 (Best Colleges rank), 0.14 (expenditures), and 0.01 (librarians). Second, each of the four variables would result in high multicollinearity—that is, the occurrence of several independent variables that are closely correlated to one another—if it were included. Each is strongly correlated with university research rank, sabbaticals, or both, and none would add substantial unique variance to the set of variables already included in the model. Third, ARL membership and Best Colleges rank both pose interpretive difficulties. ARL membership is based on a number of distinct but related factors including university-wide research activity, collection size, library expenditures, and number of library staff. Likewise, Best Colleges rank incorporates a range of characteristics, such as academic reputation, selectivity, retention rate, graduation rate, class size, faculty salaries, expenditures per student, and donations from alumni.

56. Walters and Wilder, “Worldwide Contributors”; Walters and Wilder, “Disciplinary, National, and Departmental Contributions.”

57. Budd and Seavey, “Characteristics”; Coker, VanDuinkerken, and Bales, “Seeking Full Citizenship”; Gravois, “Poster Sessions”; Hardin and Stankus, “The Affiliations of U.S. Academic Librarians”; Walters and Wilder, “Disciplinary, National, and Departmental Contributions”; Wiberley, Hurd, and Weller, “Publication Patterns.”

58. See Equation 4 of Raymond Paternoster, Robert Brame, Paul Mazerolle, and Alex Piquero, “Using the Correct Statistical Test for the Equality of Regression Coefficients,” Criminology 36, 4 (November 1998): 862. The alternative method of comparing these coefficients across groups—treating the set of all research universities as a single population and including variables for the relevant interaction effects—is not appropriate in this case, since the university research rank variable represents rank rather than magnitude. For example, an interaction term of “university research rank x 31–55 librarians” would result in a rank of

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.


zero (the highest possible level of research activity) for every university with fewer than 31 or more than 55 librarians.

59. There are otherwise no significant differences between any of the university research rank coefficients (one-tailed p < 0.05).

60. NCES, “Library Statistics.”61. Crowley, “Redefining the Status”; Hill, “Technical Services and Tenure.”62. Fischer, “Toward a Subcultural Theory”; Fischer, “The Subcultural Theory”; Hawley,

“Population Density and the City”; Wirth, “Urbanism as a Way of Life.”63. As noted earlier, Meyer (“Earnings Gains”) found an inverse relationship between

university-wide research activity and librarians’ scholarly productivity.64. Walters and Wilder, “Disciplinary, National, and Departmental Contributions.”65. Clark, The Higher Education System; Clark, The Academic Life; Kehm and Teichler,

The Academic Profession; Kempner, “Faculty Culture”; Kuh and Whitt, “Institutional Subcultures”; Metzger, “The Academic Profession”; Millett, The Academic Community; Puusa, Kuittinen, and Kuusela, “Paradoxical Change”; Ruscio, “Many Sectors”; Umbach, “Faculty Cultures.”

66. Fennewald, “Research Productivity”; Hart, “Scholarly Publications.”67. Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing”; Ione T. Damasco and Dracine

Hodges, “Tenure and Promotion Experiences of Academic Librarians of Color,” College & Research Libraries 73, 3 (May 2012): 279–301; Steven E. Rogers, “Support for Research and Publishing in Tennessee’s Academic Libraries: A Survey of College and University Librarians,” Tennessee Libraries 48, 2 (Spring 1996): 35–43; Richard Sapon-White, Valery King, and Anne Christie, “Supporting a Culture of Scholarship for Academic Librarians,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 4, 3 (July 2004): 407–21.

68. Martha J. Bailey, “Some Effects of Faculty Status on Supervision in Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 37, 1 (January 1976): 48–52; Crowley, “Redefining the Status”; Thomas G. English, “Administrators’ Views of Library Personnel Status,” College & Research Libraries 45, 3 (May 1984): 189–95; Fleming-May and Douglass, “Framing Librarianship”; Shin Freedman, “Faculty Status, Tenure, and Professional Identity: A Pilot Study of Academic Librarians in New England,” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 14, 4 (October 2014): 533–65; Bruce R. Kingma and Gillian M. McCombs, “The Opportunity Costs of Faculty Status for Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 56, 3 (May 1995): 258–64; McKinzie, “Tenure for Academic Librarians”; W. Bede Mitchell and Mary Reichel, “Publish or Perish: A Dilemma for Academic Librarians?” College & Research Libraries 60, 3 (May 1999): 232–43.

69. Sydni Dunn, “As Their Roles Change, Some Librarians Lose Faculty Status,” Chronicle of Higher Education 59, 28 (March 22, 2013): A6.

70. Walters, “Faculty Status.”71. Hill and Hauptman, “A New Perspective.”72. Mary Auckland, Re-Skilling for Research (London: Research Libraries UK, 2012), 16–32,

http://www.rluk.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/RLUK-Re-skilling.pdf.73. Elizabeth A. Dupuis, “Amplifying the Educational Role of Librarians,” Research Library

Issues 265 (August 2009): 9–14; Brinley Franklin, “Surviving to Thriving: Advancing the Institutional Mission,” Journal of Library Administration 52, 1 (2012): 94–107; Kelly E. Miller, “Imagine! On the Future of Teaching and Learning and the Academic Research Library,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 14, 3 (July 2014): 329–51; William H. Walters, “Patron-Driven Acquisition and the Educational Mission of the Academic Library,” Library Resources & Technical Services 56, 3 (July 2012): 199–213; William H. Walters, “Beyond Use Statistics: Recall, Precision, and Relevance in the Assessment and Management of Academic Libraries,” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science (February 13, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000615572174.

74. U.S. News & World Report, Best Graduate Schools: Best Library and Information Studies Schools (New York: U.S. News & World Report, 2013), http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-library-information-science-programs.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 16.4

.

The Faculty Subculture, the Librarian Subculture, and Librarians’ … · 2017-05-25 · William H. Walters 819 police, or punk) can be defined in contrast to the culture of the

Documents