Abstract
Requirements for promotion and tenure vary widely from university to university. Karen Davidson and June Garner provided valuable information about promotion and tenure for librarians in academic institutions from their survey of Carnegie institution librarians. Their presentation included demographic information, positive and negative aspects of tenure-track positions, and advice for those working in or considering tenure-track positions.
KEYWORDS:
INTRODUCTION
Karen Davidson, assistant professor, Serials Cataloger and June Garner, associate professor, Coordinator of Cataloging Services both at Mississippi State University, developed a research survey to help inform themselves and the academy about the promotion and tenure process for librarians at academic institutions. Because they will be applying for promotion during the coming academic year they were seeking guidance they could apply to their own situations.
Davidson and Garner began their presentation by asking the audience members to indicate if they currently work in a tenure-track position. Of the forty people attending this session, approximately one-half were from institutions that grant tenure to librarians. Davidson and Garner began their research project with the following research questions: (1) What types of contributions are expected for successful promotion and tenure at Carnegie institutions? (2) What advice would you give to a new tenure-track librarian? (3) How do librarians portray themselves in promotion and tenure applications? (4) What is life like for tenure-track librarians?
METHODOLOGY
Davidson and Garner used the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education website to identify academic institutions classified as Very High Research, High Research, and Doctoral Granting Universities. Library deans and directors were contacted to ascertain if librarians held tenure-track positions in their libraries. In order to identify individual tenure-track librarians, library websites were examined. Overall, they gathered 3,269 names and e-mail addresses for individual librarians of which a 20 percent random sample was used to select 655 names to survey.
They used QuestionPro software to present the survey to the selected individuals. The survey contained three sections of questions: demographic, local library promotion and tenure process, and open-ended responses to set questions. They received 252 valid responses to their survey.
RESEARCH DEMOGRAPHICS
Respondent Demographics
Davidson and Garner presented a series of bar graphs to represent the demographic findings for the 252 responses received from their survey questions. Most responses were from librarians employed in libraries containing one to three million volumes. From a geographic perspective most of the respondents were from the Midwest and South. At 152, the largest number of responses was from the Baby Boomer Generation (ages 43–61). Gen Xers (ages 31–42) were the second largest group of respondents. The gender of the respondents mirrored the general librarian gender breakdown with the majority, 176, being female.
At the time of the survey, 159 of the respondents had tenure. Again, most of those individuals were from the Baby Boomer Generation. At the time the survey was taken, 31 percent of the Baby Boomers did not hold tenure. Davidson and Garner speculated that some of the reasons for not attaining tenure might include: (1) librarianship was a second career choice, (2) they had changed their positions within their library, or (3) they had made a mid-career move to another institution. Professorial ranks (i.e., Assistant Professor) made up the largest group of respondents with professional rank (i.e., Librarian IV) being the next largest group.
Davidson and Garner reported that only eighty-nine respondents were specifically seeking a tenure-track position when they took their current position. Most of the respondents earned a salary of between $50–75,000, with no gender difference noted. Administrator, Reference Librarian, Original Cataloger, Subject Bibliographer, and Archivist were the top five job titles reported by survey respondents.
Institutional Demographics
Survey responses were from librarians employed at seventy-five public and fourteen private institutions. Davidson and Garner noted that according to survey results most academic institutions require librarians to apply for tenure in their sixth year of employment. Fifty-eight respondents noted that an additional advanced degree is required for tenure. Most respondents (80 percent) work at institutions where a national presence is required for promotion and tenure. Some required publications whereas others only needed national-level service. One hundred eighty respondents work at institutions where external review letters are required in support of tenure and promotion applications.
Approximately one-third of the respondents work at institutions where a pre-tenure review is given every year. Another third provide a review every three years. Several types of institutional support were mentioned for the promotion and tenure process including paid time off or flexible schedules for professional development, financial support, research time, sabbaticals, formal mentoring programs, and continuing education. The promotion and tenure review process in most libraries includes an elected committee of tenured librarians.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Scholarship and Service
Scholarship is mandatory for promotion and tenure applicants according to 190 respondents, while it is encouraged for another fifty respondents. Participants reported a wide range of the type of contributions considered scholarly activities at their institutions. The examples included a refereed article, poster session, presentation, book chapter, non-refereed article, writing conference proceedings, creating a Web page, grant activity, book review, and editorial responsibility. Davidson and Garner reported that the survey participants provided several scenarios of scholarship contribution required by their institutions. For example, scholarship requirements run the gamut from one refereed article to several refereed and non-refereed articles, poster sessions, and invited presentations.
Likewise, many types of academic service were required for promotion and tenure applicants. The types of contributions noted included national committee chair, editorial responsibility, professional organization officer, university-wide committee, international advisory board, library committee, non-university committee, panel presentation, professional committee membership, and professional association membership. A wide variety of required service contributions were also reported ranging from international, national, and local committee participation to mere committee membership.
Confusing the issue is that there are no clear-cut guidelines among institutions regarding what constitutes scholarship or service. For example, editorial responsibility is considered scholarship at some institutions and service at others. Because many participants were provided no specific guidelines or benchmarks for promotion and tenure by their institutions, the question becomes, “How much in enough?”
Positives and Negatives of Tenure-Track Positions
Davidson and Garner presented an array of positive and negative aspects of tenure-track positions provided by survey participants. Not surprisingly many were related to the publishing and research requirements for such positions. Encouragement and motivation to publish, assurance that faculty conduct research, and the ability to set one's own research agenda (after tenure) were all mentioned as the positive aspects of publishing requirements. The negative aspects included not knowing where to start, the lack of institutional support, a struggle with the writing process, required rather than encouraged writing, and the existence of too many substandard publications.
The ability to participate in professional activities, campus governance, and opportunities for growth, development, and advancement were all mentioned by survey participants as positive components of tenure-track positions. Job security, better pay, and institutional support for travel and time were additional positive aspects noted.
Many of the negative components mentioned by respondents concentrated on the availability and allocation of time. Some aspects mentioned include: balancing tenure with job requirements, personal commitment of money and time, fitting promotion and tenure requirements into the daily workload, and extensive documentation requirements. Another common theme among the negative aspects was the uncertainty and fear of the tenure process, stress of not getting tenure and job termination, lack of job security before tenure, and stressful application process.
Advice on Tenure-Track Positions
Davidson and Garner shared both a listing of advice and some direct quotations from participants to inform their colleagues seeking promotion and tenure or considering a tenure-track position. Much of the advice provided was related to writing and research: start writing early and make it a set part of your work schedule, publish in refereed journals, work projects can often be published, scholarship expands beyond the regular workday, maintain a positive attitude about research, team up with colleagues on projects, watch for research and service opportunities, and choose topics of interest to you. Those involved or interested were encouraged to learn about the tenure process and expectations at their institutions, start the process early, establish reasonable goals, address all categories of accomplishment, and find a mentor. It is also important to know the culture of promotion and tenure at your institution. Studying a copy of the application guidelines and forms early in the stages of your employment will provide a framework as you develop a plan for your scholarly activities.
Davidson and Garner asked respondents to share copies of their promotion and tenure applications. The presenters shared an array of direct quotations offered in the open-ended question portion of their survey. Examples included statements regarding abilities and achievements that proved to be successful for many librarians in obtaining promotion and tenure. Some examples are:
| • | “The work of the catalog librarian in creating the content of the online catalog is essential to the successful functioning of the institution.” | ||||
| • | “We librarians occupy a unique position in academia that offers many chances for an interdisciplinary approach to knowledge sharing and problem solving.” | ||||
| • | “My research has a direct relationship to my practice of librarianship and to my service activities.” | ||||
| • | “The major purpose of my research and scholarly interests is to use the knowledge gained for practical applications that will help serve the information needs of library users more efficiently and effectively.” | ||||
| • | “I feel that I have made ‘continued, significant contributions to the library profession’ with these service activities.” | ||||
| • | “I would very much like to continue building upon my professional activities in academic librarianship, and feel that I have met the requirements of excellence in teaching, research and service.” | ||||
| • | “I have excelled in assigned areas of responsibility, have built a strong record of scholarly creative activity, and have been very active in service to the University Libraries, the profession, and the public.” | ||||
AUDIENCE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Davidson and Garner's session on perspectives and images of tenure-track librarians sparked a lively discussion among the attendees. Several participants offered advice to those going through the tenure process:
| • | Tenure and promotion are your work, not separate from your position. | ||||
| • | Teaching faculty who have summers away from their regular duties have a distinct advantage for doing research. | ||||
| • | Work with your colleagues to establish local criteria for promotion and tenure review. | ||||
| • | Full professors should serve as mentors to others. | ||||
A wide range of issues was raised by the session participants including questions about research practices, dual career couples, benchmarks for tenure, and unionization factors. An interesting question was raised regarding differences in the promotion and tenure process within the ranks of librarians at the same institution. Is there a difference between technical service and public service positions? Davidson and Garner did not specifically investigate this point but may be able to determine some information from their data. Additionally, the topic regarding the impact of promotion and tenure on the recruitment and retention of librarians may be able to be addressed in more detail as their data analysis continues.
Davidson and Garner provided an intriguing and thought provoking presentation for discussion and reflection. They plan to continue analyzing the data they have collected and expressed interest in continuing their research on the topic. Davidson and Garner noted that a wide range of expectations and cultures exists among universities regarding promotion and tenure for librarians. This fact is unlikely to change and the more knowledgeable an individual is about the process the more successful she or he will be in obtaining promotion or tenure.
CONTRIBUTOR NOTES
June Garner is the Coordinator of Cataloging Services at Mississippi State University.
Karen Davidson is Serials Cataloger at Mississippi State University.
Becky Schwartzkopf is Serials Librarian at Minnesota State University, Mankato.