1 / 75

Librarians, Scholarship, and Faculty Status

Librarians, Scholarship, and Faculty Status.  David Fox University of Saskatchewan Library. University of Calgary Information Resources Planning Day May 6, 2004. Librarians (and Other IR Professionals), Scholarship, and Faculty Status.  David Fox University of Saskatchewan Library.

olisa
Télécharger la présentation

Librarians, Scholarship, and Faculty Status

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Librarians, Scholarship, and Faculty Status David Fox University of Saskatchewan Library University of Calgary Information Resources Planning Day May 6, 2004

  2. Librarians (and Other IR Professionals), Scholarship, and Faculty Status David Fox University of Saskatchewan Library University of Calgary Information Resources Planning Day May 6, 2004

  3. A little about me • Academic librarian for 30 years • College and university library experience • 9 positions in 3 institutions • Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan • Faculty status and tenure in all 3 • In and out of scope • Currently: Head, IT and TS, UofS Library

  4. A little about me • Management: 3-54 staff • Scholarship: one monograph, one chapter in a collection, two refereed articles, three conference proceedings, numerous technical reports and newsletter articles, and twenty+ conference presentations.

  5. Scholar or manager? • Both • Manager by choice; scholar by necessity • Scholarly work necessary for tenure, promotion, merit increases

  6. What this talk will cover • What is scholarship? • What is the nature and extent of librarians’ scholarship • What motivates librarians to engage in scholarship • What is the value (if any) of scholarship by librarians • to the individual • to the library and host institution • to the profession

  7. What is scholarship? • Ernest Boyer: Scholarship Reconsidered : Priorities of the Professoriate, 1990 • Based on a survey of faculty, 1989 • Traditional view of scholarship as research and publication only is too restrictive • The interests of undergraduate education, and ultimately of society, require a broader definition of academic excellence • The faculty reward system must support that broader definition

  8. The Boyer model of scholarship

  9. The scholarship of discovery • Traditional research • The creation of new knowledge

  10. The scholarship of integration • Synthesizing new knowledge from existing facts • Interpreting existing knowledge in new ways • Interdisciplinary research

  11. The scholarship of application • The acquisition of knowledge through professional practice

  12. The scholarship of teaching • Improving and expanding ones own understanding of a discipline by teaching others • Transmitting knowledge in a way that inspires new scholars

  13. The Boyer model, continued • The 4 dimensions of scholarship are inseparable • Faculty reward systems should recognize excellence in all 4 categories • Librarians are engaged mostly in the scholarship of application

  14. Rethinking scholarship – the Oregon State experience • Building on Boyer’s work C. J. Weiser led an initiative at OSU in 1996 to: • develop a scholarship matrix • develop a simple working definition of scholarship • implement that definition in the university’s standards for tenure and promotion.

  15. Oregon State’s definition of scholarship • “Scholarship is any form of creative intellectual work that is validated by peers and communicated.” • A simple, elegant statement • The OSU “litmus test” • Applies to all fields of intellectual endeavour • Scholarship is not restricted to universities!

  16. The scholarship of management Managing in a scholarly way • Good management can be “creative intellectual work” • Study and apply management theory, principles of leadership • Peer validation? • Communication?

  17. Conference presentations as evidence of scholarship • A much more immediate form of communication than published articles • Can they be peer validated? • Conference evaluation forms should request explicit feedback on each presentation

  18. Nature and extent of librarians’ scholarship (publishing) • Scholarly “output” of academic librarians (Joswick; Weller et al.) • Content of library literature (Crawford; Bao) • Quality of the library literature (Floyd & Phillips)

  19. Scholarly output of academic librarians • What % of academic librarians publish and how much do they publish? • Joswick (CRL, July 99) studied journal articles published by 1,294 Illinois college and university librarians between 1995-1999 • 13% of the population published at least one article • Avg. output of 1.27 articles/author • 64.46% of authors produced just one article • Only 8.42% of authors produced more than 3 articles

  20. Scholarly output – author analysis • Where do librarians publish? • 90% of articles were in library publications • What are the characteristics of librarians who publish? • Males slightly over-represented • More frequent contributors are from larger, research-oriented institutions • Collaborative authorship is increasing • Women more likely to collaborate than men

  21. Scholarly output – journal analysis • Weller, Hurd, and Wiberly (CRL, July 99) studied the contribution to peer-reviewed literature by practising academic librarians in the U.S. • Looked at 3,624 peer reviewed articles in 32 library journals published between 1993-1997 • 43% of articles were authored by practicing academic librarians • Avg. output of 0.96 articles/author • 78.35% of academic librarians produced just one article • Only 2.78% of academic librarians produced more than 3 articles • 55.03% of articles were produced by a single author; 36.35% had 2 authors; 5.95% had 3 authors; 2.66% had 3+ authors

  22. Scholarly output – comparison

  23. Content of the library literature • What do academic librarians write about, and is it research? • Xue-Ming Bao (CRL, Nov 2000) analyzed the content of 682 refereed articles in CR&L and JAL from 1990-1999 in relation to the 1992 ACRL Research Agenda

  24. (Bao, CRL, v. 61, no. 6, Nov 2000)

  25. Content of the library literature • “The analysis finds that articles on collections, services, staffing and the Internet have taken up the major portion of the peer-reviewed sections of C&RL and JAL. It also reveals that a wide variety of researchable questions remain to be studied and reported.” (Bao, CRL, v. 61, no. 6, Nov 2000, p. 536)

  26. Content of the library literature • Gregory A. Crawford (CRL, May 99) examined the nature of articles in CR&L and JAL for 1996, 1997 • Focused on the type of article, structure, methodology, data collection, statistical analysis… to determine the “research” content of these journals • Concluded that 74% of the articles in C&RL and 39% of the articles in JAL could be characterized as research-based…. And that percentage has increased compared to earlier studies

  27. Quality of the library literature Floyd and Phillips studied the question of whether pressures felt by librarians to publish within the constraints imposed by their institutions are affecting the quality of the library literature. Barbara L. Floyd and John C. Phillips, “A Question of Quality: How Authors and Editors Perceive Library Literature”. (CRL, Jan 1997, pp. 81-93.)

  28. Floyd and Phillips findings: Unlike teaching faculty librarians generally enjoy little support for research: “Despite pressure to publish… few librarians worked for institutions with written policies specifying how much time employees could spend on research. Only 19 percent of the authors indicated their institution had such a policy, with an average of four hours per week allowed for research…” Barbara L. Floyd and John C. Phillips, “A Question of Quality: How Authors and Editors Perceive Library Literature”. (CRL, Jan 1997, pp. 81-93.)

  29. Floyd and Phillips findings: “…One author noted that although librarians were permitted four hours each week, this was ‘theoretic, not a reality on any regular basis’. Another who reported having two to three hours each week for research commented: ‘Obviously, this time alone is nowhere near adequate to sustain a significant publishing record.” Barbara L. Floyd and John C. Phillips, “A Question of Quality: How Authors and Editors Perceive Library Literature”. (CRL, Jan 1997, pp. 81-93.)

  30. Floyd and Phillips findings: Quality of library literature is compromised by: • Librarians’ schedules of assigned duties • Lack of release time for scholarship • Other time commitments, e.g the need to keep abreast of rapid technological changes in the field • Barriers to publication posed by editorial and authorship elites Barbara L. Floyd and John C. Phillips, “A Question of Quality: How Authors and Editors Perceive Library Literature”. (CRL, Jan 1997, pp. 81-93.)

  31. Floyd and Phillips findings: Improving Quality: • Administrators must allow release time for librarians to conduct research • Tenure/promotion committees should assess quality, relevance of submitted articles • Editorial boards should assess qualifications of authors to publish • Open up the publishing process to admit a wider range of qualified authors and ideas • Publish outside the field of librarianship Barbara L. Floyd and John C. Phillips, “A Question of Quality: How Authors and Editors Perceive Library Literature”. (CRL, Jan 1997, pp. 81-93.)

  32. What motivates librarians to engage in scholarship? • Intellectual interest • Problem-oriented research • Status, prestige • External requirement • standards for promotion and tenure

  33. The motivation for librarians’ scholarship • To what extent do local standards for promotion and tenure influence librarians engagement in scholarly publishing? • Do librarians have difficulty meeting these standards?

  34. The motivation for librarians’ scholarship • Numerous articles suggest that the degree of institutional expectation for scholarship, and the opportunity provided, are significant factors influencing the scholarly output of librarians (Hart; Hoggan; Weller, et al)

  35. The motivation for librarians’ scholarship • W. Bede Mitchell and Mary Reichel investigated the influence of scholarly requirements on librarians’ ability to earn tenure (CRL, May 99) • In a survey of 374 research institutions employing tenure track librarians 60% required some scholarship and 34.6 encouraged it. • 92.2% of librarians who underwent tenure review during a 3 year period were approved. • The authors concluded that the requirement for scholarship does not appear to be a deterrent to librarians’ success in obtaining tenure

  36. UofC Handbook for Academic Staff in Information Resources, 6th ed. • Section 4: Criteria for Appointment, Promotion and Performance Assessment • Revised Requirements of Academic Staff by Rank (April 19, 2002)

  37. 4.12.3 Scholarship and Innovation (Research, Publications, Creative Activities) • Librarians have a responsibility to contribute to the creative intellectual process that is scholarship. Acknowledgement is also given to innovation which is a key element contributing to the effectiveness of the Library. Evidence of individual achievements in these areas would include • 4.12.3.1 Value to the Profession • 4.12.3.2 Value to the Library • 4.12.3.3 Value to the University • 4.12.3.4 Value to other Libraries

  38. 4.12.3 Scholarship and Innovation (Research, Publications, Creative Activities) • 4.12.3.1 Value to the Profession • publication of books, journal articles, bibliographies, book reviews, guides to the subject literature, literature reviews • entry of information into refereed databases • Contributions to an edited book • editing a professional newsletter or journal • participation as a contributor or speaker at professional workshops or conferences

  39. UofC Handbook:Requirements of Academic Staff by Rank: Librarian • 4.15.3.5 Professional Growth, Service, Scholarship and Innovation • Evidence of continuing professional growth, service and scholarship is required. Meaningful participation in provincial, national or international bodies is expected. Librarians holding non-administrative posts are expected to demonstrate scholarly contributions to further librarianship or related academic disciplines.

  40. UofC Handbook: 4.16 Annual Appraisal • 4.16.3 b) Goals • 5. Weighting of criteria to be applied to an individual’s performance in the coming year is mutually established by the individual and the Principal Evaluator, within the following guidelines: • Professional Performance 65-90% • Scholarship 5-15% • Service 5-20%

  41. UofS Library standards for promotion and tenure “The four scholarships of teaching, discovery, integration and application…. are considered in the context of permanent status and promotion considerations.”

  42. UofS Library standards for promotion and tenure “The practice of professional skills is the most important category for the consideration of tenure and promotion. It includes both the demonstration of competency in librarianship (application) and the sharing of knowledge gained through such application within forums where such knowledge is subject to the scrutiny and assessment of one’s peers (scholarship). Application is of equal importance to scholarly work,”

  43. UofS Library standards for promotion and tenure “5.2 Scholarly Work Research, scholarly and/or artistic work is creative, intellectual work which is in the public realm and which has been subjected to external peer review.Publication in reputable peer-reviewed outlets is the primary evidence in this category.”

  44. UofS Library standards for promotion and tenure “Scholarly work is expected of all librarians. Unlike traditional faculty research, a librarian’s scholarly work usually derives from professional practice. Candidates for permanent status or promotion will engage in scholarly work appropriate to academic librarianship with the fundamental expectation that the results of scholarly work will be shared with other members of the profession and the academic community.“

  45. UofS Standards: Communication of scholarly work “The appropriate vehicles for dissemination of scholarly work will include one or more of the following peer reviewed outlets: • Articles in scholarly journals; • Books, chapters in books; • Technical reports/reports to agencies derived from research; • Presentations at academic, scientific or professional meetings; • Editorial work; • Substantial translation work; • Curated exhibits.”

  46. Communication of scholarly work, continued “External peer validation of scholarly work is also derived from evidence of the adoption, implementation or replication of a librarian’s work on policy, practice, technological developments or library services by others in the extended library community.”

  47. UofS Standards:For Tenure as or Promotion to Librarian IV: “…there must be compelling evidence, beyond that demonstrated for the rank of Librarian III, that: 2) The candidate as part of … professional practice has made a significant contribution to the creation and dissemination of knowledge through scholarly work…”

  48. UofS Standards:For Tenure as or Promotion to Librarian IV: “…There must also be evidence of leadership in the establishment and execution of a clearly defined program of scholarship and a positive indication that the candidate will maintain activity in scholarly work as well as in professional practice….

  49. UofS Standards:For Tenure as or Promotion to Librarian IV: “… The candidate will have played a leading role in scholarly investigations and disseminating the results in reputable peerreviewed outlets. The candidate will have made a contribution sufficient to be recognized by colleagues in their field in other parts of Canada or internationally. “

  50. Scholarly expectations - UofC • Scholarship broadly defined as: “a creative intellectual process” • Scholarship expected at all ranks • Scholarship and professional practice are considered as different categories • Multiple acceptable forms of scholarship • including publications, conference presentations, bibliographies, pathfinders, technical descriptions, consultations • 5-15% of annual performance appraisal • Somewhat greater expectation for scholarly contribution by “non-administrative” librarians?

More Related