The status of library professionals in academic institutions of Orissa

The status oflibrary

professionals

265

The status of libraryprofessionals in academic

institutions of OrissaAn evaluation

Baman ParidaUtkal University, Orissa, India

Keywords Academic libraries, Librarians, Status, India

Abstract This study is based on a survey of library personnel working in different academiclibraries in Orissa. It determines the type of status these library professionals prefer, the criteriafor evaluating their performance for promotion and salary, whether they prefer to be evaluated liketeachers, and the input of faculty members in library matters. The study shows that 80 per cent ofthe professionals interviewed preferred academic status rather than faculty status. This means theyprefer to establish their own ranking system rather than be equated with teachers. All universitylibrarians, however, prefer to be assessed for promotion through an expert selection committee, asis the case for teachers.

IntroductionLibrarians occupy one of the most ambiguous positions in colleges anduniversities. This ambiguity has resulted in an unclear image and uncertainstatus for librarians (Sen, 1991). The status of academic librarians can beclassified into two types:

(1) faculty status, which involves the rules, regulations, procedures andbenefits of the teaching faculty;

(2) academic status, which classifies librarians as academic staff rather thanfaculty, administrative personnel, clerical service or some other category.

In the second category library staff establish their own ranking system anddesign separate criteria for evaluating their own work for promotion.

To put this paper into proper context a few key works dealing with the statusof academic librarians should be mentioned. Sen (1991) studied the status oflibrarians in some Bombay colleges to determine the librarians’ concept of theirprofession and how they were regarded by the administration and teachingfaculty. Gunjal and Sangam (1987) discussed the problems and prospects for thestatus of the college librarians. Ogumrombi (1991) surveyed the faculty statusof Nigerian university library professionals, while Park and Riggs (1991)presented the results of a 1989 American Library Association national surveyof tenure and promotion policies for academic librarians in the USA. Prins(1991) presented the results of an empirical study regarding the status, imageand reputation of librarianship conducted by the Round Table for Management

Asian Libraries, Vol. 8 No. 8, 1999,pp. 265-274. © MCB University

Press, 1017-6748

Refereed article received11 October 1998

Approved for publication7 December 1998

Asian Libraries8,8

266

(RTMLA) – a project developed by the research department of the Dutch Centrefor Public Libraries and Literature, and Kirkland (1991) discussed the internalbarriers to improving the pay of academic librarians.

The Orissa studyBuilding on such works as these, the present paper seeks to determine to whatextent academic library professionals in Orissa prefer a particular type ofstatus, the criteria for evaluating their performance for promotion and salary,whether they prefer to be evaluated in the same way as university teachers, andthe input of faculty members in library matters.

Type of status preferredThe meaning and scope of faculty and academic status were clearly explainedto respondents during the interviews. They were asked to specify clearly thetype of status they preferred for their careers.

Table I shows the numbers and percentages of people preferring each type ofstatus. It can be seen that most professionals prefer academic status to facultystatus. Their percentages range from 64.28 to 92.85 per cent, with an average of80.65 per cent. Among the university library professionals, 92.85 per cent ofnon-supervisory and 64.28 per cent of supervisory staff prefer academic status.The percentage of professionals preferring faculty status ranges from 7.15 to35.72 per cent, with an average of 19.34 per cent. Among the professionalspreferring faculty status are 35.72 per cent of the university library supervisorystaff (ULS) and 20.96 per cent of the college library supervisory staff (CLS). Thepercentages of non-supervisory professionals in this regard are lower,suggesting that most of the professionals prefer to establish their own rankingsystem that cover privileges and salary, and to design separate criteria forevaluating their work for promotion.

Academic status Faculty statusNumber Percentage Percentage Number Percentage Percentage

of of of of of ofCategory persons category total persons category total

ULS 18 64.28 8.73 10 35.72 4.85CLS 83 79.04 40.29 22 20.96 10.67ULN 13 92.85 6.31 1 7.15 0.48CLN 51 86.44 24.57 8 13.56 3.88

Notes:ULS: University Library Supervisory StaffCLS: College Library Supervisory StaffULN: University Library Non-supervisoryCLN: College Library Non-supervisory

Table I.Status preferences oflibrary professionals


professionals

267

Preferred promotion criteriaTable II shows the number and percentage of professionals preferring one ofthree criteria for promotion:

(1) seniority only;(2) individual achievement (academic and professional), without an expert

selection committee;(3) expert selection committee.

The Table indicates that the highest number of professionals in all categoriesprefer the criterion of individual achievement. At the same time, however, ratherhigh percentages of CLS (23.80 per cent) and ULN (42.85 per cent) prefer thecriterion of simple seniority. Except for those in the university librarysupervisory category (42.48 per cent) very few professionals prefer the criterionof selection through an expert committee. However, 100 per cent of theuniversity librarians prefer the expert committee option. On average 23.99 percent of professionals prefer simply seniority, 59.41 per cent of professionalsprefer individual achievement, and only 16.47 per cent prefer selection thoughan expert committee. Interestingly, on the first two averages the standarddeviations, though high, are almost equal, but in the third average the standarddeviation indicates a substantial variation. This is due to the variation inopinions among university and college library professionals.

Salary preferenceThe respondents were asked whether their salary ranking should be equal tothat of teachers. The numbers and percentages of respondents who prefer anequal salary is shown in Table III, and from this it is evident that allprofessionals in the ULS category and 88.57 per cent in the CLS category prefera salary equal to that of university teachers. The equivalent percentages of non-supervisory professionals are comparatively less.

Seniority only Individual achievement Expert selectionNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

of of of of of ofCategory persons category persons category persons category

ULS 3 10.71 13 46.62 12 42.48CLS 25 23.80 70 66.66 10 9.52ULN 6 42.85 7 60.00 10 9.52CLN 11 18.64 44 74.57 4 6.77


Table II.Promotion criteria

preferences of libraryprofessionals

Asian Libraries8,8

268

The respondents who prefer the same salaries as teachers proffer someinteresting responses when asked whether they prefer to be evaluated by thesame academic criteria as teachers – career performance, minimumqualifications, publications, PhD, etc. (see Table IV). Except for professionals inthe ULS category, more than half the respondents do not want to be evaluatedlike teachers but by some other method – this applies to 52.69 per cent of theCLS category, 57.15 per cent of ULN and 52.50 per cent of CLN. Manyprofessionals in the supervisory category (94.28 per cent) and non-supervisorycategory (58.89 per cent) desire a salary range equal to that of teachers, but asignificant proportion of them (supervisory 44.20 per cent, non-supervisory54.82 per cent) prefer not to be evaluated by the same criteria used for teachers.

Status preferenceOf professionals, 80.65 per cent prefer academic status to faculty status. Thissuggests that most professionals prefer to establish their own ranking system

Salary of teachers preferred Salary of teachers not preferredNumber of Number of Number of Number of

Category persons category persons category

ULS 28 100 – –CLS 93 88.57 12 11.43ULN 7 50.00 7 50.00CLN 40 67.79 19 32.21


Table III.Salary preferences oflibrary professionals

Evaluated as teachers Evaluated by some other methodNumber Percentage Percentage Number Percentage Percentage

of of preferred of total of of preferred of totalCategory persons category category persons category category

ULS 18 64.28 64.28 10 35.72 35.72CLS 44 47.31 41.90 49 52.69 46.66ULN 3 42.85 21.42 4 57.15 28.57CLN 19 47.50 32.20 21 52.50 35.59


Table IV.Evaluation preferences of library professionals


professionals

269

rather than be evaluated by that of teachers. Similarly, Park and Riggs (1991)found that 41.1 per cent of academic librarians enjoyed faculty rank and status.This finding was in close agreement with findings by English (1983) of 46.1 percent, Mitchell and Suieszkowski (1985) of 36.2 per cent and Rayman and Goudy(1980) of 35 per cent – all indicating that faculty status, with its privileges andresponsibilities, affects the professional lives of about half the academiclibrarians in the USA. In Nigeria, Ampitan (1987) found that 74 per cent of therespondents from five Nigerian universities were in favour of academic status.In New York State, Josey (1972) reported that 90 per cent of chief referencelibrarians endorsed the concept of librarians as faculty.

Hyman and Schlachter (1973) have suggested factors which influence thechoice of academic status among librarians, and DeWeese (1972) has addressedsimilar factors in some detail. Seven factors seem to affect the status concernsof librarians.

Age. Older librarians are more likely than their younger colleagues toadvocate faculty titles for librarians and to claim that faculty status wouldenhance their prestige.

Gender. Female librarians are more likely to oppose peer valuation thanmales. McAnally (1971) suggested that the predominance of women in theprofession working for low salaries affects attitudes of the academic communityand especially faculty. Librarianship is stereotyped as a woman’s profession(DeWeese, 1972).

Marital status. Since marriage constitutes a major alternative for achievinghigher status, one would expect married men and women to show less statusconcern than single people. Differences in status concern levels would also beexpected between married people (DeWeese, 1972).

Educational level. The higher a librarian’s educational background, the morelikely he is to support the importance of equivalence with faculty members andthe less likely to agree to the idea of peer appraisal.

Library position. Reference and administrative librarians are more likely thantechnical services librarians to feel that faculty status would enhance theirprestige and to agree that librarians function as teachers.

Years in position. The longer librarians have held their present jobs, the morelikely they are to support the view of librarians as teachers. Younger, lessexperienced librarians assign greater importance to occupationally-relatedstatus concerns than older, more experienced staff. The status concerns of olderlibrarians should diminish at the same rate that their career opportunitiesdiminish and other concerns assume greater importance for them (DeWeese,1972).

Professional association membership. Members of professional associationsare more likely than non-members to agree that librarians should have the samerank and titles as faculty. Librarians with high status aspirations will probablybe more professionally oriented and concerned with the professionalisation oflibrarianship than a librarian with low status aspirations (DeWeese, 1972).

Asian Libraries8,8

270

Since the overwhelming majority of respondents in the Orissa study preferacademic status, analysis of factors like age, gender, educational qualifications,marital status, work experience and professional involvement appear to havelittle influence on their status preference. The only exception is in the categoryof university library supervisory professionals, where the respondents whoprefer faculty status are above 30 years of age.

Work comparisons between faculty and librariansIn an academic setting librarians tend to be a small proportion of the faculty,perhaps 3-4 per cent. It is easy for such a small group to go relatively unnoticedand not to be well understood. Parker (1989), however, has shown that librariansand faculty have fundamental similarities in their work:

• they are involved with the life of the mind and interact with others toshare and extend the realm of knowledge;

• they are engaged with the subject-matter of the academy;

• they are involved in teaching;

• their career development is based on incremental accomplishmentculminating in a high level of professional maturity and contribution tothe growth of knowledge.

Parker (1989) also describes some key differences between teachers andlibrarians:

• While teachers specialise in the content of a discipline, librarians focusmore on the structure of disciplines and how they are organised.

• Librarians collect and organise materials into coherent collections so thatteachers and students can find specific items and browse throughsubject-matter easily. Librarians’ perspectives on knowledge tends to beencyclopaedic, with concern for the universe of knowledge.

• Teachers are professionally committed to academic freedom with itsprinciple of the right to profess a point of view, provided that it is doneresponsibly. Librarians are professionally committed to intellectualfreedom with its principle of providing a neutral forum for diverse pointsof view.

• While teachers provide a disciplinary interpretation or perspective onknowledge, librarians stress diverse points of view and comparisons ofthe many ways of approaching a topic.

• For teachers, teaching focuses more on subject mastery and specificskills. For librarians, teaching focuses on fostering skills for independentresearch and lifelong learning.

• Teachers do more group teaching, and librarians tend to do more one-on-one teaching.


professionals

271

• Teachers have more opportunity to interact with some students andhence are more likely to share values and be role models. Generally,teachers have the final responsibility for evaluating the students’accomplishments. The teaching setting for librarians is usually moreinformal and values are implicit.

Opinions for and against faculty statusWhen the benefits and privileges of faculty librarians are compared with thoseof non-faculty librarians, one sees that faculty status tends to provide moreadvantages to librarians (English, 1984). At the same time faculty status mayimpose terms and conditions on the appointee that are neither advantageousnor desirable. Of course, by providing faculty status the institutions couldbenefit, though as reported by English (1984), the majority of administratorshold a more negative view. Faculty status for librarians would result in thefollowing advantages (adapted from English, 1984):

• it would attract better qualified, more academically orientedprofessionals to library work;

• it would improve the morale and self-esteem of librarians, giving themmore a feeling of belonging to the institution than of second classcitizenship;

• it would promote the acceptance of librarians as professional peers byfaculty members in other disciplines;

• it would motivate librarians to be proactive, exhibit a professionalattitude towards the position and to develop research programmes.

Batt (1985) has suggested that the primary responsibility of librarians does notrequire faculty status. For librarians this status can be more of a liability thanan asset. Further, it is an unnecessary burden which results in an artificialforcing of activities into an inappropriate model. He also has suggested thatfaculty status should not be considered for positions such as cataloguing,acquisitions and circulation. In 1984 senior library staff of the University ofWestern Australia had their conditions of employment changed from academicto non-academic (Burrows, 1986). The arguments advanced for and against thischange offer some interesting insights into academic librarians’ views of theirrole and the views held by teaching staff about librarians.

In a study of the opinions of administrators English (1984) has indicated thathalf the respondents felt that librarians benefited from faculty status, while theother half felt that faculty status provided no advantages. Librarians were seenby administrators to play a negligible role as classroom teachers and also inscholarship and research contributions.

Since librarians have different basic responsibilities from teaching faculty,since their work and traditions are different and since the degree of freedom andindependence afforded librarians is much less than for faculty, they havedifficulty in meeting normal standards of teaching and scholarship. As a

Asian Libraries8,8

272

consequence, very few of academic librarians can meet faculty requirements fortenure (English, 1984).

It is interesting to note that when academic librarians in many countries haveachieved or are trying to achieve faculty status and rank, respondents in theOrissa investigation are not keen to achieve this. Rather, they are interested indeveloping a status of their own by establishing a discrete ranking system thatincludes privileges, salaries, and separate criteria for evaluating their work forpromotion.

Promotion criteria preferencesMost respondents in all categories prefer the criterion of individual achievementwithout an expert selection committee for promotion. Few believe that theyshould be promoted simply on the basis of seniority. However, all the universitylibrarians prefer their promotion through an expert selection committee. In hissurvey of 89 US academic institutions English (1983) found that threecategories of librarian performance criteria were used: 58.4 per cent usedprofessional criteria, 24.7 per cent used an amended version of faculty criteria,and only 16.9 per cent claimed that the criteria used were the same as those usedby faculty. But an analysis of the criteria listed by the last group of institutionsrevealed that virtually all used a combination of both professional and facultycriteria. English’s study did not disclose a single instance in which facultycriteria alone were used in the evaluation of librarian performance. But iflibrarians in academic institutions are to be accorded a status comparable withthat of faculty, they must accept assessment by the traditional means used toevaluate academics, namely qualifications, research and publications (Allen,1984).

Salary preferencesAll the professionals in the university supervisory category and 88.57 per centin the college supervisory category prefer a salary equal to academics. Butamong the respondents who prefer their salaries to equal teachers’, most(except in the ULS category) do not want to be evaluated like teachers (i.e.career evaluation, minimum qualifications, publications, PhD, etc.) but by someother method. It is interesting to note that, though the professionals desire tohave a status and rank equal to those of teachers, they are not willing to beevaluated by the same criteria. In another Indian study Khanna (1981) reportedthat, in answer to a question on academic status, 45.83 per cent of the librariansstrongly agreed that professional staff must have qualifications equivalent tothose of academics – in other words over half of the respondents did not agreewith the proposal. This attitude among librarians may well have been a factorin lowering their status in the eyes of academics and administrators. Withregard to status, university administrators consider librarians to be second-class citizens in comparison to faculty (DeWeese, 1972). If librarians are toimprove their status, they must gain faculty status at both an explicit andimplicit level.


professionals

273

ConclusionThe problem of faculty status for academic librarians has been successfullyaddressed in some countries, but not others. In India, particularly in Orissa, itseems a distant dream at present. If librarians are to achieve a statusappropriate to their contribution, they need to better define their role andcommunicate it clearly to their clients (Oberg et al., 1989). Otherwise librarianswill find themselves allied with administrators in their institutions, which willbring them under administrative control and cause loss of autonomy to act orparticipate in institutional self-governance (Buschman, 1989). Because of this,the status of librarians could be lowered further and their salaries suffer as aconsequence. Librarians in the colleges and universities of Orissa need to thinkof positive steps to enhance their status and prestige. While acquiringadditional qualifications may be one way of doing so, it will be more effective toadopt a positive stance in accepting the different responsibilities of the job andshowing willingness to take decisions, even though this may open them topossible criticism.

References and further readingAllen, G.G. (1984), “Proper status and functions of librarians in academic institutions”, Australian

Library Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 5-12.Ampitan, E.J. (1987), “A survey of professional opinion in academic status of librarians in

Nigerian universities”, Library Focus, Vol. 5 No. 1/2, pp. 99-109.Burrows, T. (1986), “Academic status for academic librarians”, Austral ian Academic and

Research Libraries, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9-13.Buschman, J. (1989), “The flip side of faculty status”, College and Research Libraries News,

pp. 972-7.DePriest, R. (1973), “That inordinate passion for status”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 33

No. 1, pp. 31-8.DeWeese, L.C. (1972), “Status concerns and library professionalism”, College and Research

Library, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 31-8.English, T.G. (1983), “Librarian status in the 89 US academic institutions of the Association of

Research Libraries, 1982”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 44 No. 3.English, T.G. (1984), “Administrators’ views of library personnel status”, College and Research

Libraries, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 189-95.Forgotson, J. (1961), “A staff librarian views the problems of status”, College and Research

Libraries, Vol. 22 No. 4, p. 279.Goode, W.J. (1967), “The librarian from occupation to profession”, ALA Bulletin, Vol. 61 No. 5,

pp. 544-55.Gunjal, S.R. and Sangam, S.L. (1987), College Library Problems and Prospects, Gulbarg University,

Gulbarga.Hyman, R. and Schlachter, G. (1973), “Academic status: who wants it?”, College and Research

Libraries, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 472-8.Josey, E.J. (1972), “Full faculty status in this country”, Library Journal, Vol. 97 No. 6, pp. 984-9.Khanna, J.K. (1981), “Participative management and its effectivess: a study in university

libraries”, Journal of Library and Information Science (India), Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 18-28.Kirkland, J.J. (1991), “Equity and entitlement: internal barriers to improving the pay of academic

librarians”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 375-80.

Asian Libraries8,8

274

McAnally, A.M. (1971), “Status of university librarians in the academic community”, in Orne, J.(Ed.), Research Librarianship: Essays in Honour of Robert B. Downs, Bowker, London, pp. 19-50.

Mitchell, W.B. and Suieszkowski, L.S. (1985), “Publication requirements and tenure approvalrates: an issue for academic librarians”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 249-55.

Oberg, Schleiter and Van Houten (1989), “Faculty perceptions of librarians at Albion College:status, role, contribution and contacts”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 215-30.

Ogumrombi, S.A. (1991), “Faculty status for professional librarians: a survey of Nigerianuniversity libraries”, International Library Review, Vol. 23, pp. 135-40.

Park, B. and Riggs, R. (1991), “Status of the profession: a 1989 national survey of tenure andpromotion policies for academic librarians”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 275-89.

Parker, D.C. (1989), “Librarians: an element of diversity within the faculty”, College and ResearchLibraries News, pp. 675-7.

Prins, H. (1991), “Status, image and reputation of librarianship: results of an empirical study”,Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 11-24.

Rayman, R. and Goudy, F.W. (1980), “Research and publication requirements in universitylibraries”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 41, pp. 43-8.

Sen, B. (1991), “The status of college librarians based on some colleges under Bombay Universitywithin the limits of Bombay City”, Library Science with a Slant towards Documentation, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 5-16.

About the authorBaman Parida teaches in the Department of Library and Information Science at Utkal University.Address: the Department of Library and Information Science, Utkal University, Vanivihar,Bhubaneswar 751004, Orissa, India.

Documents

The status of library professionals in academic institutions of Orissa