Perceptions by Educators and Administrators of the Ranking of Library School Programs: An Update and Analysis

Perceptions by Educators and Administrators of the Ranking of Library School Programs: AnUpdate and AnalysisAuthor(s): Herbert S. WhiteSource: The Library Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Jul., 1987), pp. 251-268Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4308147 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 13:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheLibrary Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:13:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4308147?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY Volume 57 JULY 1987 Number 3

PERCEPTIONS BY EDUCATORS AND ADMINISTRATORS OF THE RANKING OF LIBRARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS:

AN UPDATE AND ANALYSIS

In the following article, Herbert White sets forth the findings of a 1986 survey in which he asked ARL directors and library school faculty members to identify the library schools they perceive as best.

As White points out, such "perception" studies are controversial and have occasioned much debate among library educators, especially in the years since 1981, when he published the report of his first such survey.

Two members of the University of Chicago Graduate Library School faculty have long been interested in the questions raised by this type of study and are presently engaged in follow-up research to probe reasons for faculty response and nonresponse to the White survey, criteria used by faculty members when selecting the best schools, the extent and nature of the knowledge on which these selections are based, and related matters. The results of this research will be published in the October issue of Library Quarterly and will be followed by Herbert White's reaction.

Mary Biggs

251



PERCEPTIONS BY EDUCATORS AND ADMINISTRATORS OF THE RANKING OF LIBRARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS:

AN UPDATE AND ANALYSIS

Herbert S. White'

In 1986, full-time faculty members at ALA-accredited schools and directors of academic libraries belonging to the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) were surveyed to determine which library schools they perceived as providing the highest quality of education at the master's and the doctoral levels, and which schools' faculties "presently contribute most significantly to the advancement of the profession through research, publication, and leadership." Responses from each of the two survey populations are ranked; they are also compared with rankings derived from White's 1980 survey, which was carried out in almost identical fashion, and from 1970 and 1974 surveys. Of more interest, perhaps, than the rankings themselves is the evidence of change in schools' prestige, and the distinguishable trends in this change, over sixteen years.

Introduction

In 1980, I undertook a study to determine the perceptions of library school faculty members and major academic library administrators of the quality of graduate library education programs in the United States and Canada. That study was fully reported in the May 1981 issue of College and Research Libraries [1], and neither the rationale nor the methodology will be described in depth here. Concerns about, and mistrust of, perception studies are well documented and were addressed in the earlier article. Perception studies are not studies of quality; they record perceived quality, and that perception may or may not be valid when compared to other qualitative rankings. Such rankings, attempted most directly by Jack Gourman [2], have also been criticized, not only for

1. School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405.

[Library Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 252-268]

K 1987 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

0024-25 19/87/5703-0001$0 l.00

252



PERCEPTIONS OF LIBRARY SCHOOLS 253

their methodology but, more specifically, because that methodology is often not disclosed or explained. Most recently, the Gourman reports have come under specific attack by librarians, not so much for what they report about library education programs (although Gourman does rank these programs), but because of what they report to library users [3-4]. Moreover, it should be noted that, while the Gourman rankings are generally discounted and even ridiculed, they are at the same time heavily used. Reference desk staff members in academic libraries confirm this, and the physical condition of these volumes attests to frequent scrutiny.

In the library field, what comes closest to offering a recent qualitative ranking based on specific data is the 1983 study by Robert Hayes [5]. From an examination of the Social Sciences Citation Index, Hayes not only ranks the number of citations accrued by individual faculty members but also presents a rank ordering of schools arranged by the frequency of citation of their faculty members. In general, these statistics do not differ substantially from the cluster of highly ranked schools in perception studies, although, as in perception studies, the rankings within clusters differ. Hayes notes that the schools whose faculty members have often been cited almost inevitably have doctoral programs; similarly, virtually all schools ranked highly in perception studies offer doctorates. Some schools do appear in the Hayes report but not in perception studies, most obviously Maryland and Albany. Hayes's analysis considers the recency of citations but not the age of the publication being cited. Citations to significant works written years ago by faculty members whose activity has trailed off would be weighed by Hayes equally with citations to recent works by still-prolific scholars. However, differences in levels of recent faculty publication could well have a significant impact on perceptions of schools' quality. If perception studies have a greater sensitivity to recent activity, this may make them a more accurate barometer of change.

Criticisms of perception studies have been reported by earlier investi- gators, such as Norton [6], Carpenter and Carpenter [7], and Blau and Margulies [8]. These criticisms center on a number of issues. One is that perception studies do not provide a scientific measure and "better" studies should be devised. Nobody can disagree with that hope, but the likelihood of the emergence of appropriate scientific methodologies that would receive general acceptance, in this field or in others, is probably not great. A second criticism is that perception studies are unfair because they tend to focus on historic rather than present-day characteristics and may support schools of declining quality simply because they are older and better known. The possibility that this criticism is valid was the primary reason for undertaking this update. Studies carried out pe-



254 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

riodically should indicate not just how schools are ranked, but how their rankings change over time. Are there rising programs and declining programs? In the 1980 study, I began to discover such patterns of differentiation from the earlier findings of the Carpenters and of Blau and Margulies, and I wished to determine whether such patterns con- tinued to be identifiable. The results of this study convince me that such perception studies, using an unchanged methodology and a population that obviously changes in individuals but not in group description, can be usefully undertaken at intervals of about five years.

The third argument is that such studies are either dangerous or "uncollegial," in that they attempt to separate library education programs beyond the binary accredited/nonaccredited listing provided by the American Library Association Committee on Accreditation (COA), and, of course, some would prefer to eliminate that distinction as well. The Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) has already done so by eliminating membership category dis- tinctions. I have commented earlier [9,10] that a failure to seek, identify, and acknowledge superiority does not serve our search for quality because quality is more expensive and must therefore be rewarded. I also reject the suggestion that these studies and their promulgation place unranked schools at risk within their parent institutions. We have learned over the last decade that academic institutions are perfectly capable of closing library education programs without any input from the library or library education community, or the COA. In fact, the recent dissertation by Marion Paris [ 1] suggests that a library education program may be closed by its parent institution because of a belief that the school does not make a satisfactory contribution to the mission and program of the university, despite the fact that COA evaluations have found the program to be satisfactory and even superior.

Peer perception studies have long been the criteria by which academic programs are evaluated. Such studies are carefully noted by the parent institutions that can know little about how to measure their academic units, and probably know least of all how to measure library education programs. If perception studies are going to be carried out, they should be performed and reported carefully and grounded in as valid a survey base as possible. This is what I have attempted to do. One reason for updating the 1980 study has already been noted. Another is that, over the past six years, there have been changes in library education, and change will probably continue throughout the foreseeable future. Some programs have been closed by their parent institutions, including at least one that had made its mark in perception studies since their inception. Other programs have been threatened with closure. Practitioners have become increasingly outspoken not only in their criticism of library




education programs (a process that is probably unending) but also in their proposal of remedies. Part of the value of this study is not only its measurement of changes in perception by educators and administrators but also its determination of how these two groups differ.

Methodology

The same methods were used as in the 1980 study. Changing that methodology would to a considerable extent have invalidated compari- sons. In the earlier study, questionnaires were submitted to all full-time faculty members teaching in programs accredited by the American Library Association. Since there is never an up-to-date list of these individuals, or even a current count of them (ALISE publications are at least one and sometimes two years late in reporting these data), the questionnaires were distributed through the deans of each school. Fac- ulty were asked to identify up to ten schools that in their perception provided the highest quality of education at the master's level, up to five schools that did so at the doctoral level, and up to ten schools whose faculties made the most significant contribution in research, publication, and professional service. To avoid "cheap" votes, faculty members were not allowed to choose the institutions at which they were presently teaching. The same questionnaire was distributed to the directors of academic libraries in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), which limits its membership through a combination of criteria including staff size and holdings. National libraries and some major public libraries are also members of ARL; these were excluded in order to focus on the perceptions of academic librarians in major institutions. Their perceptions were considered important not only because these libraries hire considerable numbers of library school graduates but also because they do so from a national pool.

It has been pointed out that allowing respondents to "vote" for the school they attended probably introduces a bias favoring older and larger programs, although it is by no means certain that individuals would automatically perceive the institutions they attended to be of high quality. Nevertheless, this potential bias does exist in any perception study. Furthermore, perceptions change slowly, probably far more slowly than the real changes for good or bad that ultimately affect them. Nevertheless, the 1980 study had revealed significant shifts from the earlier perception studies, and I was most interested in further changes, although I also recognize that some people are fascinated by rankings in themselves.

Two changes were made in this survey. A fourth category of question,




which asked respondents to evaluate the quality of the doctoral program for the preparation of administrators rather than researchers, was included in 1980 but eliminated in 1986. This was because a substantial number of 1980 respondents had refused to answer this question, point- ing out that the Ph.D. program offers preparation for research and not for administration; therefore, any attempt to evaluate Ph.D. programs' preparation of administrators was irrelevant, even if many institutions require a Ph.D. for some administrative appointments.

An attempt was made to add another category of respondents. An earlier survey [12] had identified fifty-four public libraries in the United States with professional staffs of sixty or more. Since such public libraries hire a considerable number of library school graduates annually, it seemed useful to determine whether the perceptions of these directors concerning library education quality differed substantially from those of their academic library counterparts. It was already known from the above survey that they differed substantially in preferences regarding curriculum. While some of these public library directors did complete and return the questionnaire, ultimately that part of the survey had to be abandoned. Many of these directors pointed out that positions in their libraries were not filled through national searches because of their in- ability to transport candidates long distances for interviews. Their perceptions of library education programs were, therefore, severely limited by the geographical constraints that affected the makeup of their own staff. The decision was made reluctantly not to tabulate the responses of public library directors. The finding regarding search limitations, while hardly startling, nevertheless has implications for some of the discus- sions presently under way concerning specialization within the master's curriculum. It is already known that smaller public, school, and special libraries hire from a local pool. If this is also true for large public libraries, then only academic libraries participate in a national search and screen process. This tends seriously to undermine the suggestion that specific schools be encouraged to specialize in areas of their choice and that this would free other schools from having to offer those specialties.

Response Levels

It has already been noted that perception studies generate a great deal of controversy, in this field as in others, although it may be that they are accepted with more equanimity in disciplines that are more used to them and perhaps less insecure. Certainly, schools that are perceived to be of high quality cannot be blamed for publicizing this information to their




alumni and academic administrators. Schools not as highly ranked, or not ranked at all in this study, have several options. They can discount the entire process as meaningless, but they do so at some peril. We know that library education programs are not closed because of university funding problems. They are examined because of university funding problems and closed because the conclusion is reached that they do not contribute sufficiently to overall university priorities. To some extent these may be stated in financially related terms, such as student-faculty ratios or costs of instruction, but library education costs and income are too trivial a part of the whole to make much difference. More frequently, conclusions are justified in terms of perceived academic excellence and relevance. Schools not highly rated, and particularly schools whose ratings have declined, might serve themselves well to determine why this is the case. However, this rather simple survey, like its predeces- sor, generated a fair amount of discussion. At least two schools held faculty meetings to discuss the appropriateness of responding, and there is no doubt that such actions can have a dampening effect on response.

The 1980 survey produced responses from 259 faculty; as noted at the time, the response rate this represents can only be approximated. AL- ISE statistical reports are not distributed until the following year, and sometimes late in that year. Moreover, even these reports provide no overall consistency in numbers, because full-time faculty counts fluctuate by semester and these semesters begin at different times. Copies of the 1980 survey were sent to the deans, directors, and chairs of the sixty- nine programs then accredited by ALA, with the request that they be distributed to full-time regular faculty members, collected, and returned. Probably, the great majority of administrators did exactly that, but straggling returns from individuals who apparently "missed the boat" were received for months. One of the recurring statistics in the 1980 ALISE data indicated 714 faculty members, and the reported mean faculty size for accredited programs of 10.7 would yield only a slightly larger total of 738 [13, pp. F-2, F-3]. This would suggest a 1980 response rate of between 35 and 36 percent. Although this is not as high as one might wish, the survey did garner a far larger number of responses than any earlier library school perception study. Also, patterns established by the first twenty-five returns rarely shifted, which suggests that the small number of responses yielded valid rankings.

The 1986 response was 139. Again, it is not possible to determine accurately what percentage of the whole population this represents. A decline in response amount was expected. The number of accredited schools to which the survey was distributed had dropped from sixty-nine to sixty, and ALISE statistics for 1983-84 had reported a decrease in mean faculty size to 9.85 [14, p. F-3]. If the same figure is assumed for




1986, then this produces a population of 591 and a response rate of 23.5 percent. That decline is obviously significant and disappointing, although, as before, patterns established by the earliest returns did not change.

The survey methodology employed does not permit me to know who did not participate, and I can only speculate about nonrespondents' reasons. As before, some individuals expressed opposition to all perception studies either because they consider them unfair or because they consider the results injurious to and divisive for the profession. Others argued that they did not think they knew enough about other programs to be able to vote and clearly felt uncomfortable in reporting an unsub- stantiated "feeling" even when assured that this is precisely what perception studies are designed to measure. Moreover, I cannot really be sure that all school executives distributed the questionnaires as requested, although I have not heard from any individuals that they were disen- franchised. It is more likely that the questionnaires were distributed but perhaps accompanied by urgings that they either be or not be completed. As already noted, at least two schools deemed the survey important enough to discuss its implications in a formal faculty meeting, and informal pressures may also have been at work. All of these reactions were also reported during the 1980 survey. It can be assumed that faculties and administrators at schools not represented in the rankings may not be eager to have such listings appear at all, particularly if their self-perceptions are higher or if they have conveyed to their university administrations the impression that they are more highly regarded.

It is also impossible to determine what impact these nonrespondents have on rankings. If they represent a block (and there is no indication of polarization by geography or size), for which schools would that block have voted? If anything can be concluded, it is that nonvoters thereby support their own schools, since they cannot vote for themselves and their votes would have gone to institutions that in any rank-order listing become their competitors.

All of the factors discussed pertain as well to the 1980 survey and do not explain the decline in response level. However, the 1980 survey was distributed without warning, and I know that at least one dean spent a considerable amount of time on the telephone urging others to boycott the study. Opponents of the 1986 survey, if they chose to organize, would have been readier. All of this suggests the desirability of further investigations to determine why individuals responded, or did not re- spond, to this survey and how they feel about perception studies in general. As noted in the editorial preface to this article, one such study will be reported in the next issue of Library Quarterly. One desirable change in approach has already been made clear. When I repeat this survey, I will contact directly those individuals listed as full-time faculty




members in the most recent directory issue of theJournal of Education for Library and Information Science, although that listing is at least a year old. This will help reduce the impact of any group or collegial pressure on individuals. School administrators will be asked to distribute questionnaires only to faculty members added since the publication of that list or to update the list.

The survey population of research library administrators was trimmed through the elimination of national and public library members of ARL. In 1980 the questionnaire was distributed to 105 administrators; fifty-nine, or 56 percent, responded. In 1986, the questionnaire was distributed to ninety-two administrators. Responses were received from forty-five, or 49 percent. Library administrators, who may know considerably less than faculty about specific library education programs, are nevertheless more willing to confide their perceptions. It may be that this is because they have no emotional reaction to the process, no sense of direct involvement or danger. There is no doubt that perception studies can be misused, and in that sense they pose a threat, but this is true for virtually any study. What is particularly annoying about rankings is that, like a beauty contest, they produce more losers than winners. Administrators or faculty members at schools not highly esteemed may indeed feel that the ratings are not fair because respondents fail to understand significant activity taking place. It is not my responsibility to defend these answers; I only announce and try to track them.

Findings

It has already been noted that a significant objective of this study was not just to determine rankings but to see how they had changed over time. For this reason, in tables 1-6, rankings from earlier studies are also included when available. These include my 1980 survey, which reported on the same categories of quality; the 1970 study by Carpenter and Carpenter, which listed educators' perceptions of doctoral programs; and the 1974 study by Blau and Margulies, which recorded the votes of deans in a ranking of professional education, which I interpret to mean the master's degree program. The Carpenters listed only six schools in their ranking; Blau and Margulies listed ten.

Caveats

Before any analysis is attempted, two caveats must be expressed. As noted in the 1980 survey, Canadian library schools probably cannot receive fair judgments in perception studies involving primarily U.S.



TABLE 1 PERCEPTION RANKING BY LIBRARY EDUCATORS OF SCHOOLS PROVIDING THE

HIGHEST-QUALITY EDUCATION FOR LIBRARIANSHIP AT THE MASTER'S LEVEL

White 1980 Blau and Margulies 1974

1. Illinois 113 1 1 2. UCLA 92 4T 8 3. North Carolina at Chapel Hill 83 3 NR 4. Indiana 74 10 10 5. Michigan 71 2 2T 6. Wisconsin-Madison 53 14 NR 7. California, Berkeley 51 8 7 8. Drexel 50 11 NR 9T. Columbia 46 6T 2T 9T. Simmons 46 15T NR lIT. Pittsburgh 43 6T 9 lIT. Syracuse 43 12 NR 13. Chicago 27 4T 2T 14. Rutgers 23 9 5 15. Toronto 19 15T NR

NOTE.-N = 137, 1,027 responses (mean = 7.50). One hundred seventy-three additional responses distributed among

thirty-two schools, including one program not accredited by ALA COA. T = tie, NR = not ranked.

TABLE 2 PERCEPTION RANKING BY ACADEMIC RESEARCH LIBRARY

ADMINISTRATORS OF SCHOOLS PROVIDING THE

HIGHEST-QUALITY EDUCATION FOR LIBRARIANSHIP AT THE

MASTER'S LEVEL

White 1980

1. Michigan 36 2 2. Illinois 34 1 3. North Carolina at Chapel Hill 32 8 4. UCLA 31 5 5. Indiana 29 7 6. California, Berkeley 25 3T 7. Chicago 25 3T 8. Columbia 23 6 9. Pittsburgh 15 9 10. Simmons 14 11 lIT. Rutgers 8 10 IIT Toronto 8 NR lIT. Wisconsin-Madison 8 13T

14. British Columbia 6 15T 1ST. Drexel 5 12 15T. Washington 5 13T

NOTE.-N = 45, 338 responses (mean = 7.51). Thirty-four additional responses distributed among twenty schools, including one program not ac-

credited by ALA.

260



TABLE 3 PERCEPTION RANKING BY LIBRARY EDUCATORS OF SCHOOLS PROVIDING THE

HIGHEST-QUALITY EDUCATION FOR LIBRARIANSHIP AT THE DOCTORAL LEVEL

Carpenter and White 1980 Carpenter 1970

1. Illinois 109 2 2 2. Indiana 51 9 NR 3. California, Berkeley 50 5T 6 4. Michigan 47 3 5 5. UCLA 44 11 NR 6. Pittsburgh 40 7 NR 7T. Chicago 39 1 1 7T. Syracuse 39 10 NR 9T. Columbia 36 4 4 9T. North Carolina at Chapel Hill 36 12 NR 11. Drexel31 13 NR 12. Wisconsin-Madison 27 14 NR 13. Rutgers 24 5T NR

NOTE.-N = 138, 602 responses (mean = 4.36). Twenty-nine additional responses distributed among nine schools, all witfh programs presently accredited by ALA at the master's level.

TABLE 4 PERCErTION RANKING BY ACADEMIC RESEARCH LIBRARY

ADMINISTRATORS OF SCHOOLS PROVIDING THE

HIGHEST-QUALITY EDUCATION FOR LIBRARIANSHIP AT THE

DOCTORAL LEVEL

White 1980

1. Michigan 27 4 2. Illinois 24 3 3. California, Berkeley 20 5 4. Chicago 19 1 5. UCLA 17 9 6T. Indiana 14 6 6T. North Carolina at Chapel Hill 14 10 8. Columbia 12 2 9. Pittsburgh 8 7 lOT. Rutgers 5 8 lOT. Toronto 5 1IT 12. Wisconsin-Madison 3 13T 13T. Florida State 2 NR 13T. Simmons 2 NR

NOTE-N = 42, 175 responses (mean = 4.17). Three other schools received one vote each, two of which have programs presently accredited by ALA at the master's level.

261




TABLE 5 PERCEPTION RANKING BY LIBRARY EDUCATORS OF SCHOOLS

WHOSE FACULTIES, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, PRESENTLY

CONTRIBUTE MOST SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE ADVANCEMENT

OF THE PROFESSION THROUGH RESEARCH, PUBLICATION,

AND LEADERSHIP

White 1980

1. Illinois 101 1 2. UCLA 81 7 ST. California, Berkeley 58 8 3T. North Carolina at Chapel Hill 58 6 5. Indiana 53 12 6T. Drexel 52 11 6T. Pittsburgh 52 3 8. Wisconsin-Madison 51 NR 9. Syracuse 48 10 10. Simmons 46 14 11. Michigan 45 5 12. Chicago 35 2 13. Columbia 31 4 14. Rutgers 26 9 15. Toronto 17 NR 16. Louisiana State 16 NR

NOTE.-N - 136,875 responses (mean = 6.43). One hundred five additional responses distributed among twenty-seven schools, all but one with programs presently accredited by ALA at the master's level.

library educators and librarians. Barriers that hinder the free interchange of faculty members and librarians between the two countries make it very difficult for Americans to know a great deal about Cana- dian library schools, and earlier surveys have also shown that Canadians cannot evaluate U.S. schools as accurately as their own [15].

The timing of the questionnaire coincided with investigations concerning the future of the University of Chicago Graduate Library School. Although the future of the Chicago school has since been assured, it is possible and perhaps likely that the school lost votes from individuals disinclined to select a program that might cease to exist. It is, of course, impossible to measure this potential impact, but the ranking in this study of the University of Chicago should be accepted with caution. Conversely, it is possible that the University of Illinois, which had submitted a proposal to acquire the resources and faculty of Chicago if that school were to close, may have benefited from conjectures about what the strength of its program would then have been.




TABLE 6 PERCEPTION RANKING BY ACADEMIC RESEARCH LIBRARY

ADMINISTRATORS OF SCHOOLS WHOSE FACULTIES, TAKEN

AS A WHOLE, PRESENTLY CONTRIBUTE MOST SIGNIFICANTLY

TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PROFESSION THROUGH

RESEARCH, PUBLICATION, AND LEADERSHIP

White 1980

1. UCLA 34 8 2. Illinois 28 1 3. Michigan 25 3 4T. Indiana 23 6 4T. North Carolina at Chapel Hill 23 9 6. California, Berkeley 21 5 7T. Chicago 19 2 7T. Columbia 19 4 9. Pittsburgh 14 7 10. Simmons 13 11 11. British Columbia 6 NR 12T. Florida State 5 NR 12T. Wisconsin-Madison 5 12T 14. Toronto 4 14T 15T. Drexel 3 12T 15T. Louisiana State 3 NR 15T. Rutgers 3 10 15T. Syracuse 3 14T

NOTE.-N = 44, 263 responses (mean = 5.98). Twelve additional responses distributed among nine schools, all but one with programs presently accredited by ALA at the master's level.

Analysis

In one sense, no analysis of a perception study is possible because we cannot know exactly why individuals voted as they did. At best we can conjecture, but such conjectures are not unreasonable. We know that library education programs in a number of institutions are in difficulty, and in some cases that difficulty has found the schools unprepared. Most had been completely successful in meeting COA standards and in some instances had been complimented for "strengths" that others now see as weaknesses.

There are at least two possible approaches to analysis. We can identify the schools that continue to be perceived as strong by both educators and administrators and try to determine what makes these schools different from other academic programs in library and information science. Much of the information in such areas as budget, equipment support, salaries,




travel support, and student financial aid is not available to me but is to the COA. At minimum, COA could look at characteristics beyond those identified below to determine whether guidelines, if not standards, need to be amended. If this is not done, library educators may continue to find themselves squeezed between two sets of demands, their own, as expressed in the accreditation process, and those of their parent institutions.

We can also look at the characteristics of rising and declining programs to attempt to determine what might have brought about such changes in the way they are perceived, especially since perceptions change slowly. Rising programs include, in alphabetical order, British Columbia, Indiana, Louisiana State, North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UCLA, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. What has occurred in these institutions? Schools that have declined include, again alphabet- ically, Chicago, Columbia, Pittsburgh, and Rutgers. These institutions have just completed or are currently involved in reevaluations, restruc- turing, and the selection of a new chief administrative officer. These can be considered promising developments because a change in administration frequently leads to an infusion of vigor and a surge of activity. It has been suggested in the management literature that not all change is good, but most good results from change. Future perception studies may reflect the impact of such activity in these schools.

Doctoral Programs

One is immediately struck by the fact that all of the most highly regarded schools have doctoral programs (although not all schools with doctoral programs are highly perceived). That correlation might be expected in the ballots of library educators, but it does not explain the voting of administrators, who do not look for the library Ph.D. in the junior professionals they hire. It may be that institutions with doctoral programs are better equipped to establish a climate of intrainstitutional relations that brings support for the master's as well as the doctoral program, and COA analysis could make it possible to determine if this is so. It is even more likely that schools with doctoral programs tend to attract faculty members who are professionally visible and have an interest in research and publication. The migration of top faculty members from schools of lower prestige to those of higher prestige is a phenomenon not unique to our field. Much faculty recruitment in any field consists of "raiding," of enticing key faculty members away from other institutions. It is certainly quicker and sometimes safer to build or strengthen an academic program by attracting recognized scholars and




teachers than by starting with recent graduates, but this requires the flexibility and organizational support to permit hiring at higher ranks and salaries. Indiana, North Carolina, Syracuse, and Wisconsin are among the highly perceived schools that have recruited established faculty members from other institutions. It is an old adage in higher education that, barring direct and extraordinary action, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. There can be little doubt that doctoral programs in library science are most comfortably housed in universities that have other doctoral programs as well and pride themselves on this accomplishment. What this means for the quality of library education programs in institutions without such high expectations be- comes an open and very serious question. One obvious approach is for the school to set itself targets beyond those of the institution as a whole and to become a showcase program for the parent institution. Another is to acquire even just one new faculty member whose national reputation and recognition will give the school instant visibility. That could explain the sudden rank appearance for a school such as Louisiana State.

Size of Faculty

It has already been noted that it is difficult to determine from ALISE data the regular faculty complement of any program at any one time, although that information is certainly available in a more consistent format to COA. The latest information provided by ALISE covers only 1983-84. For that year, the mean faculty size of accredited programs had dipped below ten for the first time, and it may have declined further by now. For the programs most consistently ranked in the present perception study that figure was thirteen, and only one school had fewer than ten regular faculty members [14, pp. F-52, F-53]. Size of faculty would appear to be important, and this is logical. If faculty form a collegium for professional and scholarly interchange, it is necessary to have colleagues in the same specialization with whom to interact. At the same time, there is no direct correlation between size of faculty and ranking; there are schools with larger faculties that do not appear in the tables, such as Maryland, Texas, and Western Ontario.

Age of School

Critics of perception studies usually point out that older schools have an advantage because their name recognition is higher. It is true that virtually all of the highly perceived schools have existed for a consider-




able time, but their age varies from before the turn of the century to less than forty years. It is also true that there are equally venerable schools that are not as highly perceived, including Albany, Emory, Peabody (Vanderbilt), and Pratt. In any case, changes in perception seem to be quite independent of this factor, and being old does not protect schools against slippage in the rankings.

Size of Alumni and Student Groups

These factors have also been advanced by critics as possibly significant, and unquestionably, size could be a factor. For example, alumni may tend to support their schools. But this factor would not account for changes in rankings, and some schools with large alumni groups are not highly ranked, while some schools with fewer alumni are. Size of present student body raises other questions because current students do not participate in perception studies. To the extent that size of student population is tied to faculty and resource allocations, it may be significant; also, the presence of many students enhances a school's ability to offer a wide range of courses. It can also be argued that students form a collegium of their own and learn from interacting with one another. In any case, while in general, highly perceived schools are relatively large, there are notable exceptions. There are also large schools that are not highly ranked.

General Analytical Comments

The foregoing discussion suggests that an attempt to generalize characteristics of highly perceived schools into an overall model would be simplistic, although some analysis could produce useful results. How- ever, I believe that the more useful analysis would concern what the schools do, not what they look like. What are the evidences of innovation and of positive change? We know from the general management literature that static organisms do not fare well in a dynamic environment; this applies to library education programs as well. This 1986 update of the earlier 1980 study, and comparison of its findings to those of the Carpenters and Blau and Margulies, indicate significant trends. First, the stratification of library education programs continues. Both the 1980 and 1986 surveys indicate that there are three strata. The first is of highly ranked programs as reported in this document. That list does not change substantially in composition over a short period of time, although it does change in rank order, sometimes dramatically. Indeed, explanations for those shifts are not impossible to develop. A second




group is of schools that draw support from respondents but not enough to be ranked; this is particularly true for schools offering only master's programs. Finally, there is a group that drew no support at all in either 1980 or 1986.

Whatever one's view of perception studies in general and of this one in particular, they cannot simply be dismissed as without substance or significance. They are far too ingrained in the academic evaluation process, and they will probably continue to be used until and unless alternative quantitative measurements that are more generally accept- able can be developed.

Just a few additional observations are in order. This study not only affirms the position of the University of Illinois's program as the one consistently most highly esteemed by library educators and administrators alike (particularly by the former group) but also points up a startling difference in prestige between Illinois's and other schools' doctoral programs. Illinois brings many advantages to a perception study. It is old and has many alumni, including some in important posts as administrators and educators. As already noted, Illinois could have benefited from general knowledge of its offer to take over the University of Chicago Graduate Library School. Also, Illinois has a new dean who is both assertive and highly visible. Any of these factors could be significant; only one applies uniquely to this school, but the combination may well be unique in an important way.

Administrators' perceptions appear to alter more slowly than educators'; that is not surprising, as administrators are not as currently aware of changes in library education. However, their perceptions do shift in the same general directions as those of educators. The high and increas- ing regard for programs at North Carolina and UCLA may be tied in part to the fact that these schools require longer academic preparation at the master's level. But both schools also rose in the rankings of doctoral programs and faculty contributions. It could be that individuals who had chosen a school in response to one question would be inclined to choose it again, but examination of the returned ballots indicates that this did not occur often. Respondents did not simply repeat their listings but approached each question separately.

One final observation should be made. Michigan's program, which has a long and distinguished history, is highly regarded by educators, but consistently even more highly regarded by administrators, who perceive it as one of the top two library schools. By contrast, the educational programs at Drexel and Syracuse, while ranked by both educators and administrators, are more highly esteemed by the former group. Both schools have developed new and innovative curricula, and it may be that this fact is better recognized and perhaps better appreciated by educators. If this is true, perhaps library educators are very far from being




stodgy and out of touch with the changes rapidly taking place in our libraries. In some cases, it may even be that educators lead and practitioners follow their innovation. Furthermore, it can be argued that this is exactly what should happen. These ideas are put forward only as untested hypotheses. Nevertheless, I think they are worth considering and perhaps worth searching for ways to evaluate.

Many educators serve as consultants to operational library programs and in that role influence the operation of libraries, just as practitioners contribute recommendations for the design of library education curricula. That kind of two-way conversation is potentially fruitful. Educa- tors are often accused of failing to adapt their curricula to rapid changes in practice; probably, there is some truth to this charge because there are many schools and they differ widely. However, it is also possible that the reverse sometimes occurs.

REFERENCES

1. White, Herbert S. "Perceptions by Educators and Administrators of the Ranking of Library School Programs." College and Research Libraries 42 (May 1981): 191-202.

2. Gourman, Jack. The Gourman Report: A Rating of Graduate and Professional Programs in American and Intrnational Universities. Los Angeles: National Educational Standards, 1980.

3. Webster, David S. "Jack Gourman's Rankings of Colleges and Universities: A Guide for the Perplexed." RQ 25 (Spring 1986): 323-31.

4. "High Marks to Webster and Hattendorf on College Rankings: Three Letters to the Editor." RQ 26 (Fall 1986): 135-36.

5. Hayes, Robert M. "Citation Statistics as a Measure of Faculty Research Productivity." Journal of Education for Librarianship 23 (Winter 1983): 151-72.

6. Norton, Eloise S. "Three Good Library Schools as Suggested by Peers." Unpublished communication to survey respondents. August 1, 1978.

7. Carpenter, Ray L., and Carpenter, Patricia A. "The Doctorate in Librarianship and an Assessment of Graduate Library Education." Journal of Education for Librarianhip 11 (Summer 1970): 3-45.

8. Blau, Peter M., and Margulies, Rebecca Zames. "The Reputation of American Profes- sional Schools." Change 6 (Winter 1974-75): 42-47.

9. White, Herbert S. "Critical Mass for Library Education." Amenrcan Libraries 10 (Sep- tember 1979): 468-70, 479-81.

10. White, Herbert S. "The Library Education Accreditation Process: A Retreat from Insistence on Excellence." Library Journal 105 (November 15, 1980): 2377-82.

11. Paris, Marion. "Library School Closings: Four Case Studies." Ph.D. dissertation, In- diana University, 1986.

12. White, Herbert S., and Paris, Marion. "Employer Preferences and the Library Educa- tion Curriculum." Library Quarterly 55 (January 1985): 1-33.

13. Library Education Statistical Report 1980. State College, Pa.: Association of American Library Schools, 1980.

14. Library andl Information Science Education Statistical Report 1985. State College, Pa.: Association for Library and Information Science Education, 1985.

15. Denis, Laurent-G. "Full-Time Faculty Survey Describes Educators." Canadian Library Joumal 36 (June 1979): 107-21.



Documents

Perceptions by Educators and Administrators of the Ranking of Library School Programs: An Update and Analysis