Academic Librarians: Perceptions of the acculturation process

Pergamon Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, Vol. 19, No. !, pp. 33--41, 1995

Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Lid Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

0364-6408/95 $9.50 + .00

0364-6408(94)00049.2

FEATHER RIVER INSTITUTE

ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS: PERCEPTIONS OF THE ACCULTURATION PROCESS

MARY C. BUSHING

Collection Development Librarian

Montana State University Library

Bozeman, MO 59717

Internet: alimb @ msu.oscs.rnontana.edu

Abstract - - This project is not intended to be part of the debate concerning faculty status for academic librarians, but rather is an investigation of librarians in an institution where faculty status is the norm. The purpose was to identify factors in the actual experiences of faculty librarians in a particular environment. A qualitative research design was used to illicit personal experiences and understandings from individuals. Insights from these real people might serve to improve the environments within which librarians function. Through the analysis of extended individual and focus group interviews common factors and perceptions emerged. The experiences and perceptions of a dozen librarians, tenured and not-yet-tenured, provided a frame- work within which to make recommendations concerning specific ways that library administrators and individual librarians might actively contribute to the acculturation of new faculty librarians. The naturalistic research design provided a positive forum for discussion and communication among the librarians involved.

Keywords - -Academic, Culture, Librarians, Faculty.

INTRODUCTION

Librarians employed in academic libraries have argued, discussed, and campaigned for and against faculty status for decades. While the volleys continue on both sides of the debate in almost every journal written by and for academic librarians, those of us in institutions where faculty status is a way of life are busy dealing with the implications of such status in our every day lives.

33

34 M.C. BUSHING

Official guidelines and rules already exist to assist us. The Association of College and Research Libraries has developed standards for defining faculty status [1], and model criteria and procedures for appointment, promotion, and tenure [2]. These documents, in addition to locally pro- duced criteria and definitions, are helpful in defining the role and responsibilities of faculty librarians, but they provide little insight into the process of "becoming faculty" for those finding themselves employed in academic institutions as faculty librarians with the same responsibilities and privileges as instructional faculty.

Many university communities at this time are endeavoring to revise criteria and expectations for faculty. Such initiatives are driving specific disciplines to more clearly identify the elements of a scholarly life most appropriate for their members given the circumstances of the electronic information world. The question is: What do individuals need to do or be, in order to achieve success in academe as the Twentieth Century draws to a close? Librarians, too, are engaged in trying to clarify what it means to be a part of the university and to function as library faculty in a particular institution and culture. As a librarian involved with colleagues and friends at various stages of being or becoming faculty, and achieving promotion and tenure, or failing to do so, these issues have taken on special significance. How have academic librarians in general, and my colleagues in particular, come to understand the complex expectations of the academy? Where and how do we learn to be faculty librarians? As Zanna and Darley explain in The CompleatAcademic:

•. . understanding the "rules of the game" gives the advantage. Thus those for whom the rules have never been spelled out may well achieve less than those with more savvy . . . . A number of people have less success than they might, not because they have fewer talents, but because they do not have a complete understanding of the "system" within which they are working. If this is true, then we are wasting a great many talents within academe. There is also a moral issue; if some individuals succeed because they understand the rules of the game, while others fail because they do not, then a basic unfairness has been perpetrated. [3]

Is it possible to identify how librarians have come to know the "rules of the game" and to use that knowledge to better communicate the culture and the rules? Additionally, one wonders if there is a difference between the experiences of technical services and public services librarians?

ACCULTURATION PROCESS THEORY

Mitchell and Morton, themselves tenured academic librarians, discuss the research on the socialization or acculturation process by which nonlibrary faculty become members of the professorate during their period of graduate work for an advanced degree. They explain that during the process, individuals develop expectations, an understanding of their field's modes of operation and inquiry, a set of professional ethics, and experience with activities that are likely to be reward- ed with promotion and tenure [4]. Further explanation of the academic socialization process is provided by research in adult and higher education [5], but Morton and Mitchell believe "the socialization process for librarians is different from instructional faculty" [6]. This difference is primarily that the creative processes of research and scholarship are not as central to librarians as these expectations are for other faculty. Librarians think of themselves as organizers and retrievers of knowledge and information, not as creators of knowledge and scholarship.

The terminal degree in librarianship is the Master of Library Science (MLS) with the content and course of study almost identical for individuals with career goals in school, public, special or academic library practice. In these degree programs there appear to be few opportunities for scholarly research, creative endeavors, or acculturation into academe. Little attempt is usually made to identify, track, or socialize into the academy those individuals who intend to become fac-

Perceptions of the Acculturation Process 35

ulty. Even when an institution requires a second graduate degree for librarians, the second degree is most likely a subject masters. Most MLS recipients leave graduate school wanting to be employed as librarians, with only a vague preference for one type of librarianship over another. Thus many are likely to become faculty librarians by virtue of the marketplace and/or their personal circumstances rather than as the result of a conscious selection of the academic life. Since few librarians are prepared for the faculty role during their library education, acculturation must be occurring on the job because a high percentage are successful in learning the rules of the game as evidenced by their attainment of promotion and tenure [7].

While the debate about faculty status is replete with recommendations to improve library education, library practice, and the environment for acculturation, most of these recommendations appear to be based upon theory. Such ideas seem to hold promise for an ideal future if implemented, but do they reflect the real experiences of ordinary librarians who are not involved in the formal debate about faculty status? This project developed because of an interest in understanding how library faculty have actually come to comprehend what the rules of the faculty game are for them. This included exploring how they came to define their roles, and how they communicate that definition. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to identify elements that have actually contributed to, or inhibited, the acculturation of library faculty. The general questions to be explored were the following:

1. Did graduate education experiences contribute to an understanding of the academic culture? 2. How were librarians acculturated to the professorate? 3. What do librarians understand about the term faculty? 4. In what ways do librarians see themselves as different or similar to other university faculty?

These questions served as the basis for developing the research design, an interview protocol with basic topics for discussion, and a profile questionnaire to determine career and educational information about the participants.

METHODOLOGY

The research design consisted of open-ended interviewing of twelve faculty librarians with con- tinuous analysis of the data in order to form a gestalt from the responses. According to Lincoln and Guba, "data analysis involves taking constructions gathered from the context and reconstructing them into meaningful wholes" [8]. Two different interview methods were tested to identify the strengths and weaknesses in each, and to compare the results obtained. The purpose of the interviews was to obtain first-hand descriptions of personal experiences, feelings, perceptions, attitudes, ideas, and understandings concerning faculty status. Interviews were conducted with seven individual librarians. Each interview lasted sixty to ninety minutes, was audiotaped, and later transcribed. The transcripts were then analyzed and themes related to each of the four broad questions were iden- tiffed and color coded in the text. One focus group interview, lasting ninety-five minutes, was conducted with five librarians. This interview was taped and analyzed directly from the tape. Because of Krueger's advice concerning the need to closely monitor focus group participants' relative power and relationships [9], those individuals invited to participate in the group were senior faculty with tenure. It was hoped their rank and long history together would facilitate communication.

The sample to be used for this study was selected because of convenience and ease of access, and because of a desire to deal with a specific environment, but the university is fairly typical of medium-to-large institutions with faculty librarians. At the time of the study, there were seventeen

36 M.C. BUSHING

tenure-track librarians on the faculty. Availability and criterion-based selection was implemented in order to have individuals with tenure and without; those active in the university and profession, and those less involved; those with and those without a second graduate degree; and those who selected librarianship before a second subject degree as well as those who selected librarianship only after another graduate degree. When twelve people had been interviewed, it appeared that ample material had been obtained to characterize the experiences of acculturation to the professorate of academic librarians in the institution.

In the initial research design proposal, an analysis of the vita of each participant was proposed as a possible means of providing triangulation for the interview information. The number of case study participants and the lengths of their resumes, together with the limited scope of this project, prohibited such a step. Information to profile or characterize the group of librarians was gathered through the use of a simple, one-page questionnaire.

Before the interviews were begun, an interview protocol was developed and refined. The final interview protocol included a total of seven pairs of questions. It was used as a guide with the questions paraphrased and ordered in response to each unique interview situation. Participants were encouraged to pursue concepts of importance to them, even if this resulted in the failure to address all questions thoroughly in each individual interview. In the focus group interview, open discussion and an exploration of the concepts was encouraged without regard for the order or exact approach of the protocol questions.

PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS

The individuals had varied backgrounds, career paths, and status, and yet there were surprising similarities. The undergraduate education of these individuals is typical of librarians in that all but one majored in either the social sciences or the humanities. The one exception was a mathematics degree earned more than thirty years ago. These librarians received their MLS degrees across a more than thirty-year period, with half of them attending graduate school within the last decade when faculty status has been the most contested and visible [10]. In addition, half (six) of the librarians have a second masters degree, but only half (three) of these wrote a theses for the degree. Three of the subject masters were in history. In general, despite the differences in age, these librarians all seem to have research and career interests in the humanities and social sciences.

Their professional activities varied, but some general comments can be made to characterize the group. Two-thirds (nine) belong to the American Library Association, and at least half belong to two or more library associations. Only two people belong to professional associations in other disciplines. Half (six) of the librarians described themselves as active members of the profession, the university and the library, but only one leader was identified in these venues. Half (six) have been in the profession more than 10 years. Seven are tenured. Eight of the twelve reported having written and published at least two items of substance (monographs or lengthy articles), and two reported more than six publications of substance. As a whole, this group has been actively meeting the requirements for research and publication.

Activities during the first three years of their academic careers varied, but there were some elements that appear to be consistent with the service nature of the profession. All twelve of these librarians attended at least one conference during their first 3 years of employment and two-thirds (eight) of them, including all of those with tenure, served on a university committee in these initial years. This information was solicited in an effort to see if there were patterns that might be applied to the acculturation process for future members of the faculty. More detail and finer dis- tinctions are needed to provide meaningful interpretations of this information. As travel money is


more difficult to acquire for professional development and conference attendance, junior faculty may have difficulty in funding opportunities for professional interaction and involvement beyond the university.

Answers to the four initial research questions have been formulated by using comments, insights, and reported events drawn from the interviews. The first question (Did graduate education experiences contribute to an understanding of the academic culture?) is the one with the clear- est answer - - an overwhelming "no" for the MLS graduate degree. The following comments are representative of the responses from all twelve participants:

I don't recall being informed of faculty status, or of even realizing that academic librarians might be different in any way other than type of client and level of information used.

Faculty status issues were never mentioned.

There were no conversations about publishing, faculty status, faculty governance, or other responsibilities.

These comments were in complete agreement with the findings of Major's study of mature librarians [ 11 ].

Goetz and l_ecompte explain that "the process of learning how to think like a member of a discipline is the primary purpose of graduate schooling, and it usually leaves an indelible imprint upon the logical processes and future research of its participants" [12], but the graduate education in library science does not seem to provide an opportunity to imprint the academic culture and the role of the professorate. While there were no individuals with doctorate degrees in this study, Major found that the only subjects in her study of mature librarians "whose library school experience seemed relevant to their learning to be library faculty members were those who held PhDs before going to library school" [13]. This finding may be worth pursning in a broader project because from purely anecdotal and personal experience it appears to have some validity and implications.

In addition to a common experience regarding their MLS education, a majority of those with a second masters degree and those currently working on one, agreed that the experience did little or nothing to prepare them for the role of faculty. Three of the individuals who received their subject masters before their MLS, felt that, at least in the macro sense, they were attracted to the academic world and the concepts of personal research during their subject masters work. They did not indi- cate, however, that they understood then what "being faculty" might mean. They thought that faculty in the discipline did "serve as examples in terms of the habits of a successful researcher" or that they were aware that an "academic culture existed that was different from what might be described as a professional culture." Those who earned a second graduate degree after their MLS were certain that their subject masters was as unenlightening regarding the culture of the professorate as was the MLS experience. Although a few of these individuals did write a theses for one of their degrees, it was not possible to identify any consistent pattern regarding that experience and an understanding of faculty status or academe.

The answers to the second question (How were librarians acculturated to the professorate?) and the identification of the factors contributing to this acculturation were more diverse. An inter- esting unanticipated element was what one librarian referred to as "being a college brat," or having either a parent or spouse as a professor. Surprisingly, one-third (four) of the librarians had knowledge of academe through personal relationships and the resulting participation in the social network of a college or university. Major found almost the same percentage (five of eighteen) of "college brats" in her study of mature librarians [14]. The opportunities afforded by such contacts and first-hand prior knowledge of the life of a faculty member are difficult to assess, and certainly

38 M.C. BUSHING

recommending academic parents or significant others as a guarantee for success in the academic

culture is not a very helpful approach! When asked how these librarians learned about the expectations of the university and how they

became acculturated to it, many of the responses addressed the requirements for promotion and

tenure as defining the culture. These responses included such comments as the following:

The most informative element for me has been watching others go through the review process and failing to be retained or failing to be given tenure. That really brings home, in a negative way, what the university is about.

Mostly I wasn't shown the university so much as I was told what I had to do to stay. I was quite clearly tom that these were the expectations placed on faculty because this was what the university is all about - - pub- lish and be on committees. I came here to be a librarian but that did not seem to be what mattered. I can't remember being shown particularly what it meant to be faculty in so many words. I guess it was expected that I would just come by this knowledge by osmosis.

It seems more of a threat rather than a reward-type situation.

The university culture was characterized by many, but not all, as a series of hoops to be jumped through rather than a set of values related to intellectual pursuits, creative activity, and teaching. Further, there seemed to be a perceived lack of role modeling for these individuals who would like

to "see" how to be faculty rather than just being told what the rules are for survival. A number of individuals mentioned their service on university committees as being one of the

most helpful means by which to come to understand what the university is and what appropriate faculty behavior and beliefs might be in this environment. This observation is consistent with the findings of Major, whose research was being conducted at much the same time. She found that "mature" academic librarians report contact, as peers, on university committees as one of the key

elements in their success as faculty members [15]. The need to provide opportunities for librarians to become meaningfully involved in the intellectual and administrative life of the university early in their career was mentioned by almost every one of the twelve interviewees. It is difficult for librarians to understand the culture of the university if they are isolated within the library and so busy with their job performance that they have no time to become involved in the life and culture

of the campus. In this regard, seven individuals commented upon the difficulty of technical ser-

vices librarians in particular to become actively involved in the life of the university because of their lack of contact with faculty and students. One person said:

The best way to learn what matters in the university is to get involved . . . . Social contacts are nice, but they don't teach you the same way as peer contact does. When instructional faculty interact with us in the library the relationship is not a peer relationship because they are here to get something from us and we are in a service mode rather than a peer mode. You learn about values, issues and questions when you have the opportunity to vote and contribute as an equal on committees.

Additional suggestions for things that might help in the acculturation process included:

Being explicitly sensitized to the disadvantages that librarians face in the university.

Being encouraged early in one's career to develop a specialty for research and maybe even for a specific type of service.

Being given explicit expectations, not generalities.


The library should provide an environment that is supportive of the "faculty role" rather than the "librarian role." Work schedules that preclude any individual flexibility make creativity a very "iffy" business.

The third question (What do librarians understand by the term faculty?) is closely tied to the proceeding comments and ideas. '~l'he faculty mind-set" or "frame of mind" was discussed by numerous individuals. In the focus group it was called "a way o f life" that permeates one 's exis- tence, twenty-four hours a day, both "at work" and elsewhere. Librarians think o f "going to work" while faculty think of themselves as historians, f i lm-makers, engineers, physicists, all o f the time, not jus t when they are in the office or the classroom. One needs "to be" faculty not just to "act l ike" faculty. The fol lowing statements illustrate the l ibrarians ' perceptions about the meaning o f the term faculty.

Faculty status means a way of "being" rather than doing something.

Being faculty is a twenty-four hour a day vocation. It is not just a job. Being a librarian is just a job.

There's a mentality that goes along with being a faculty member.., you "buy" into it. There are specific things you need to do, and especially ways you need to think.

People think it means being a teacher in a college or university, but it means something else now. It means doing publishing and having a certain degree of freedom to do your work when you wish.

Right now the definition of faculty at this university has placed severe constraints on my role as a professional librarian. Number one, it has forced me to write an article and get it published when in fact I feel my time can be better used and I would be better serving others by doing something else for the university.

Al l o f these comments illustrate the difficulty in acculturating individuals to the role of faculty i f they find themselves required to become faculty by accident o f the marketplace rather than through an act ive choice to "be" faculty. Accept ing a way o f l ife when one thought one was accepting a job can create a wide range of difficulties for the organization as a whole, the adminis- tration, and the individual.

The final question (In what ways do librarians see themselves as different or similar to other university faculty?) highlighted some basic differences in personali ty types. The l ibrary profession has tradit ionally attracted more females than males, more passive rather than aggressive personali- ty types, more individuals who work in collaborative rather than competi t ive models, and more persons interested in service as part o f a team, rather than individual work in isolation. These elements were explored repeatedly in conversations about the differences between instructional faculty and l ibrary faculty. Whi le no individual identified all of these stereotypical characteristics for librarians, the factors were raised again and again during the interviews even though this "typical" librarian does not exist. The focus group identified the need to have an ego as a prerequisite to be successful as a faculty member. This idea of posturing and promoting the self is usually foreign to individuals attracted to l ibrarianship which considers i tself a service profession. As one o f the mature librarians in Major ' s study commented, "We don ' t act as peers . . . . Most librarians jus t don ' t have the confidence." [16] These basic differences between the value systems and the modes of operation of librarians and faculty prompted one librarian to comment:

We are trying to put square pegs in round holes.

Many of us are here because of an accident of the marketplace. We did not choose to be faculty members. We choose to be librarians. We are sheep in wolf's clothing.

40 M.C. BUSHING

Only a few of these individuals actually selected the role of faculty librarian or think of themselves as having the necessary characteristics for this role. Most of them have learned how to behave like faculty, to "jump through the hoops" as necessary, but few of them have assumed the "frame of mind" discussed. The motivation to behave like faculty is provided by external forces rather than any internalized value system.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The primary conclusions of this limited study are summarized below:

1. The librarians in this study had little acculturation to academe prior to their employment as faculty librarians since their graduate education did little to prepare them for their role as faculty.

2. The understanding of the term faculty by these individuals is vague, but includes the concept of "being" something rather than "doing" something and having a certain amount of flexibility to accomplish ones work.

3. The promotion and tenure process itself is a key factor in the acculturation process. 4. Many of the differences identified between instructional and library faculty have a basis in

the stereotypical characteristics of those traditionally attracted to the library profession.

The identification and naming of these major conclusions, as well as a listing of the other insights and suggestions articulated during this s~dy, can serve to clarify and expedite the acculturation process. From the experiences and obse~ations of these individual librarians it may be possible to consider changes that will make the acculturation process easier and clearer.

The following five specific recommendations are a direct result of this project:

1. Because modeling the faculty role is perceived as more important than merely explaining it, a specific, formal mentoring program for junior librarians may be appropriate. In addition, individuals should take more personal responsibility for modeling appropriate behavior and attitudes;

2. Because professional involvement with other faculty is important in understanding the general context of the university culture, means should be developed to provide early career opportunities for interaction with faculty outside of the library, and special attention should be paid to the isolation of technical services librarians;

3. Because research, publication, and certain aspects of service often require solitude and flexibility, an effort should be made to provide an environment supportive of such work, including flexible scheduling and private work space, as well as resources supportive of research, publication and service endeavors;

4. Because the promotion and tenure process itself was identified as a key factor in educating librarians about academe, more opportunities should be found to involve junior faculty in some aspect of the process for others; and

5. Because specialization provides a focus for publication and librarians do not usually arrive in an academic position with a dissertation that already defines an area of specialization to be used for publication, junior librarians should be encouraged to specialize in an aspect of library research and service early in their careers. Instructional faculty branch out into other areas of interest after they have "mined" their dissertation research for purposes of promotion and tenure. Librarians can use the same strategies.


While these recommendations will not guarantee successful acculturation for junior faculty, they will address some of the major issues that surfaced again and again during this study of how librarians learn or do not learn the rules of the academic game.

REFERENCES

1. Association of College and Research Libraries. "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians," College & Research Libraries News, 53 (1992), 317-318.

2. Association of College and Research Libraries. "Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and University Librarians," College & Research Libraries News, 48 (1987), 247-254.

3. Zanna, Mark P. and Darley, John. M., eds. The Compleat Academic: A Practical Guide for the Beginning Social Scientist. New York: Random House, 1987, xix.

4. Mitchell, W. Bede and Morton, Bruce. "On Becoming Faculty Librarians: Acculturation Problems and Remedies," College & Research Libraries, 53 (1992), 379-392.

5. For further discussion of the acculturation process for university faculty in general see Shirley M. Clark and Mary Coreoran, "Professional Socialization and Contemporary Career Attitudes of Three Faculty Generations," Research in Higher Education, 20 (1984), 131-153; Shirley M. Clark and Mary Corcoran, "Perspectives on the Professional Socialization of Women Faculty," Journal of Higher Education, 57 (1986), 20-4-3; Carin S. Weiss, "The Development of Professional Role Commitment among Graduate Students," Human Relations, 34 (1980, 13-31, Mark P. Zanna and John M. Darley (eds.). The Compleat Academic: A Practical Guide for the Beginning Social Scientist. New York: Random House, 1987.

6. Mitchell and Morton, 384. 7. Mitchell, W. Bede. "Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: Compliance with Standards, Opinions of University

Administrators, and a Comparison of Tenure-success Records of Librarians and Instructional Faculty" (Ph.D. diss., Montana State University, i 989).

8. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, Egon G. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985, 333. 9. Kruger, Richard A. "Quality Control in Focus Group Research," Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the

Art, ed. David L. Morgan. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993. 10. Additional sources include Janet Krompart, "Researching Faculty Status: A Selective Annotated Bibliography," College

& Research Libraries, 53 (1992), 439-449; W. Bede Mitchell, "Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: Compliance with Standards, Opinions of University Administrators, and a Comparison of Tenure-success Records of Librarians and Instructional Faculty" (Ph.D. diss., Montana State University, 1989); J. M Page, "The Pursuit of Professional Identity for Librarianship within American Higher Education: A Study of Educational Programs and Work Requirements in Socialization for Academic Identity in the 1980's" (Ph.D. diss., Saint Louis University, 1990); E. Werrell and L. Sullivan, "Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: A Review of the Literature," College & Research Libraries, 48 (1987), 95-103.

11. Major, Jean A. "Mature Librarians and the University Faculty: Factors Contributing to Librarians' Acceptance as Colleagues," College & Research Libraries, 54 (1993), 468.

12. Goetz, Judith P. and Lecompte, Margaret D. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. Orlando, FL: Academic, 1984, 103.

13. Major, 468. 14. lbid, 467. 15. Ibid, 465. 16. Ibid, 467.

Documents

Academic Librarians: Perceptions of the acculturation process