Research, publication, and service patterns of Florida academic librarians

Research, PuFlorida Acad

by Deborah B. Henry a

Available online 5 October 2004

In an effort to establishbenchmarks for comparison to

national trends, a web-basedsurvey explored the research,

publication, and serviceactivities of Florida academiclibrarians. Participants rankedthe importance of professional

activities to the tenure/promotion process. Findings

suggest that perceived tenureand promotion demands do

influence research productivity.

Debo

TinThe Journal offor research and publication activitieswith regard to promotion and tenure.However, promotion and tenure oppor-tunities and guidelines are not uniformamong the public and private collegesand universities in Florida. This projectexplores the patterns of research, pub-lication, and service activity of Floridaacademic librarians with respect to libra-rian status and requirements and thussets a benchmark by which to comparetrends to both national and otherregional patterns. There have been very

librarians.In the early 1990s, Budd and Seavey9

reported inconsistencies in requirementsfor publishing and actual performance bylibrarians, at least with regard to publish-ing in national publications. They studiedauthorship in thirty-six library relatedjournals over a five year period. Theythen used a survey to gain additionalinformation from what appeared to be themost productive libraries. Park andRiggs,10 using a questionnaire method,found that job performance was most

rah B. Henry, Nelson PoynterMemorial Library,

University of South FloridaSt. Petersburg, United States

[email protected];a M. Neville, Nelson Poynter

Memorial Library,University of South Florida

St. Petersburg, United [email protected] Librarianship, Volume 30, Nblication, and Servemic Librarians

nd Tina M. Neville

Several studies have explored thepatterns of publishing by academiclibrarians.1 Incentives, support, and

rewards for publishing have also beenexamined.2 Many of these studies explorenational trends by examining articlespublished in leading library journals orthrough the use of surveys. Severalstudies examine research and publishingtrends of academic librarians on a regionalbasis, by subject discipline, or at a singleinstitution.3 Researchers suggest thatmore benchmarks of this sort would behelpful in identifying and clarifying fac-tors that influence the research andpublication productivity of academiclibrarians.4

Florida is an interesting case studywith seventy-three public and privateinstitutions of higher education that areaccredited by the Southern Association ofColleges and Schools (SACS) includingten state universities and twenty-eightstate community colleges.5 The FloridaLibrary Association collaborates with theFlorida Chapter of the Association ofCollege and Research Libraries (FACRL)to encourage presentations and publish-ing opportunities for state academiclibrarians.

Anecdotal evidence suggests thatmany academic institutions in Floridaare increasingly emphasizing the needumber 6, pages 435451ice Patterns of

few, if any, studies of this size or scopeof practicing academic librarians. AsJoswick6 stated, . . .mapping the char-acteristics of librarian authors helps todefine the dynamics and vigor of thediscipline. . .

LITERATURE REVIEW

Various studies have researched theeffects of faculty status where grantedto academic librarians, especially withregard to publication expectations. Theresults are mixed. In 1985, Watson7

examined journals from eleven librarypublications to investigate whetherarticle publishing by practicing academiclibrarians and library school faculty wasaffected by institutional requirements.She reported that publishing require-ments do affect productivity, with prac-ticing librarians contributing more to theliterature overall but faculty teaching inlibrary and information science pro-grams publishing more articles perperson. By examining twelve libraryjournals, Krausse and Sieburth8 reportedan increase in publication productivityby academic librarians over a ten yearperiod (from 1973 to 1982), which theyattributed, in part, to the need topublish, especially on the part of librar-ians at larger research institutions orwhere faculty status was granted toNovember 2004 435

Figure 1Response Rate Analysis by Carnegie Classification. (DRI and DRE represent Doctoral/Research

toral/Research UniversitiesExtensive, respectively. Associate Collegesac-General and Bac-Liberal Arts refers to Baccalaureate-General and

Baccalaureate-Liberal Arts institutions.)frequently a criterion for promotion and/or tenure but that research and publica-tion, though encouraged, were not uni-

UniversitiesIntensive and Docrepresent two-year institutions. Bversally required. A clear cut picture ofthe relationship between faculty status,promotion and/or tenure requirements didnot emerge.

More recently, Zemon and Bahr11

suggested that college librarians do notpublish for reasons of promotion andtenure. Weller et al.12 proposed that thesize and reputation of an institution mayinfluence the research productivity oflibrarians. Mitchell and Reichel13

believe that there has been an increasein the importance of scholarly output intenure review for academic librariansbut that actual requirements may varyconsiderably.

Other studies have concentrated onspecific populations of librarians, such asStewarts14 review of publication trends inAlabama libraries. In 1996, Rogers15

found that, in Tennessee academic libra-ries, greater emphasis is being placed onresearch and publication. In additionalstudies, Mularski et al.16 examined pat-terns among health science librarians,Hart17 performed an in-depth study ofpublishing requirements and activities atPenn State University, and Joswick18

436 The Journal of Academic Librarianshipexamined the article publication patternsof Illinois librarians.

METHODOLOGYThis study investigates the research,publication, and professional activities ofFlorida academic librarians. It also seeksto reveal more about the various promo-tion, tenure, and professional advance-ment processes and opportunities avaiQlable to this population. Where applicable,correlations are made between professio-nal activities and/or the opportunity for

tionnaires that have appeared in theliterature.19

Survey questions also investigatewhether there is a perceived differencein the importance attached to varioustypes of research and publications, i.e.how do Florida academic librarians rankthe importance (for tenure and promo-tion) of a book publication, refereedjournal articles, magazine articles, poster

Table 1Most Frequently Cited Subject Specialties

Subject Specialty Number of Responses

Education 14

English/Literature 9

History 7

Law 6

Business 4

Library Science (PhD or advanced certificate) 4

Fine Arts 3

Music 3,promotion and tenure. The authorsdesigned the survey found in Appendix1 based on previous surveys and ques-

sessions, or in-house documents? Thesurvey also explores where librarians are

and November 17, 2003, remindingpotential participants that the survey

selecting the appropriate Carnegie Clas-sification. Thirty-six respondents pro-vided their institutional name, allowingthe authors to confirm that at least 53%of the sixty-eight institutions surveyedwere represented in the final response.

...this was a population studyrather than a sampling...

Although the final response was not aslarge as hoped, these criteria indicate that it

Table 2Position Classification of Respondents (n = 195)

Position Title % of Respondents Answering this Question

Faculty (143) 73%

Professional (34) 17%

Administrative (13) 7%

Library and Information

Science Faculty (tenure-earning) (2)

1%

Other, not defined (3) 2%publishingare they limiting their workto traditional library publications or arethey expanding into other academicdisciplines?

Prior to distribution, local colleaguestested the survey for clarity and ease ofuse. In addition, the University of SouthFloridas Institutional Review Boardapproved the research plan and survey.The survey instrument was posted to theweb site of the Nelson Poynter Memo-rial Library. Using the American LibraryDirectory, the SACS list of accreditedinstitutions in Florida, the CarnegieClassification listing for Florida, andinstitutional web sites, an attempt wasmade to locate the email address ofevery academic librarian at SACSaccredited institutions in Florida. Whileit was not possible to locate addressesfor every librarian (because of changesin employment, incomplete or outdatedweb listings, etc.), a substantial direc-tory of email addresses was created. OnOctober 16, 2003, email invitationswere sent to 820 librarians at sixty-eight different institutions encouragingparticipation in the survey. Five institu-tions could not be reached due to non-working or unavailable email addresses.After the initial request, additionalmessages were sent on November 3Perception of

Tenure (Baccalaureate Masters or Doctoral) n =

Promotion-earning (all institutions) n = 74

Tenure (Community Colleges) n = 36

Total responses n = 146

Note: *Because of rounding, combined total = 97% (35was still available.The survey remained available for

approximately six weeks, from October15, 2003 to December 5, 2003. To aid inconfidentiality, the library server strippedthe header and address from the emailresponses before the messages wereplaced in the investigators mailbox.Participants had the option to skip anyquestions that did not apply to his or hersituation. Comments and remarks werealso welcomed. Answers to the surveyquestions were then transferred to adatabase for tabulation and evaluation.

RESULTS

Of the 820 invitational emails distributed,196 usable replies were received for aresponse rate of 24%, which is higher thanthe normal rate described by Alreck20 forlarge mail surveys. Since this was apopulation study rather than a sampling,all respondents had an equal chance toparticipate. To be sure that the distribu-tion of responses to the survey werediverse, the Carnegie Classification21 ofthe respondents were compared with theoriginal population. Figure 1 illustratesthat the distribution of the respondentscorrelates well to the original population.Participants were also given the optionof giving their institutional name orTable 3the Importance of Publishing Books a

RequiredStrongly

Recommended Consid

36 81%* (29) 17%* (6) 0%

24% (18) 35% (26) 28%

0% (0) 6% (2) 42%

32% (47) 23% (34) 25%

of 36).is large enough and representative enoughof the entire population to provide somegeneral insights into publishing and serv-ice activities of Florida librarians. Theauthors will then be able to use thepreliminary data found here to performfollow-up studies that address these issuesin greater detail.

In the discussion that follows, it shouldbe noted that not all 196 librariansresponded to every question; therefore,results for some questions will be dis-cussed in terms of the number of responsesto that particular question rather than thetotal number of survey participants. Sam-ple sizes are included; percentages arerounded to the nearest whole number.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Questions from Part I of the survey helpedto describe the participants. Overall,female librarians made up 78% (152) ofthe total 196 respondents. Interestingly,89% (39 of 44) of the male participantshold promotion or tenure earning posi-tions compared to 74% (111 of 151) of thefemale group. The majority of the librar-ians work with twelve-month contracts(83%, 161 of 193) as opposed to 9 months(4%, 8 of 193) or other contractualagreements (12%, 24 of 193). Thetwelve-month contract appears typical

nd Articles

eredConsidered

But Less Value Not Considered

(0) 3% (1) 0% (0)

(21) 4% (3) 8% (6)

(15) 22% (8) 31% (11)

(36) 8% (12) 12% (17)

November 2004 437

Table 4Perceptions of Respondents Towards the Value of Selected Professional Activities

RequiredStrongly

Recommended ConsideredConsidered

But Less Value Not Considered

Single author (n = 146) 4% (6) 23% (33) 45% (65) 10% (15) 18% (27)

Book reviews (n = 145) 1% (1) 8% (12) 50% (73) 26% (38) 14% (21)

In-house publications (n=146) 8% (12) 12% (18) 33% (48) 28% (41) 18% (27)

Poster sessions (n = 146) 1% (2) 23% (34) 50% (73) 14% (21) 11% (16)

National presentations (n = 146) 1% (2) 42% (61) 41% (60) 5% (8) 10% (15)

State presentations (n = 146) 2% (3) 27% (39) 52% (76) 10% (14) 10% (14)

Journal editor (n = 145) 0% (0) 11% (16) 65% (94) 12% (17) 12% (18)

Newsletter editor (n = 145) 0% (0) 5% (7) 55% (80) 26% (37) 14% (21)

)

)when compared to librarians working inAlabama (72%) and Tennessee (88%) asreported by Darby and Rogers, respec-tively.22 Other agreements were notdescribed. All of the nine-month contrac-tees hold tenure-track positions with 79%(127 of 161) of the twelve-month con-tractees being in promotion or tenureearning tracks. The majority of the librar-ians (98%, 193 of 196) who respondedidentified themselves as full time.

Graduate degrees beyond the Mastersof Library Science (MLS) are sometimesconsidered for promotion and/or tenure.In this group, sixty-nine (35%) of the 195respondents identified themselves as hav-ing a second masters degree and/or adoctorate. In this population, the two mostpopular areas for advanced studies areeducation and English/literature. Degreesin history, law, and business were alsocited multiple times. As expected,responses from academic law librarians

Grants (n = 147)

Teaching a credit-based course (n = 147)indicate the J.D. (Doctor of Jurispru-dence) is a valuable asset. Table 1illustrates the most frequently listed sub-ject specialties. It would appear from thissurvey that advanced degrees in science,

Perceptions of Responden

Tenure-track (Baccalaureate, Masters or Doctora



Total responses n = 136

438 The Journal of Academic Librarianshipmath, and certain other disciplines are notas common.

PROMOTION ANDTENURE ELIGIBILITY

As illustrated in Table 2, most respondents(74%, 145 of 195) are considered facultyat their institution (either as library facultyor faculty at a graduate library/informationstudies school), with nearly all of thefaculty librarians (95%, 138 of 145)eligible for promotion and/or tenure. Amajority (77%, 150 of 195) of the totalrespondents are eligible for tenure and/orpromotion regardless of their title. Thiscompares favorably to the status of librar-ians from other southern states. Accordingto Darby, 74% of the librarians in Alabamahold faculty rank with 60% eligible forpromotion; Rogers reported 80% of Ten-nessee librarians hold faculty rank.23

Participants were also asked whether awritten institutional policy existed thatquantitatively described the requirements

1% (1) 22% (32) 57% (84

5% (8) 19% (28) 55% (81for promotion and/or tenure processes.These requirements are not uniformamong the academic institutions in thestate of Florida. Out of the 150 librarianswho indicated they were eligible for

Perception of Promotion and TenureRequirements

The librarians eligible for promotionand/or tenure rated different types of

Table 5ts for the Emphasis on Publishing for Promotion and Tenure

GreaterEmphasis

LesserEmphasis

No Changein Emphasis

No Opinionon Emphasis

Emphasis NotApplicable toCircumstances

l) n = 36 83% (30) 8% (3) 8% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0)

65% (45) 25% (17) 6% (4) 3% (2) 1% (1)

23% (7) 39% (12) 10% (3) 6% (2) 23% (7)

60% (82) 24% (32) 7% (10) 3% (4) 6% (8)promotion and/or tenure, only twenty-five(17%) said that institutional guidelineswere quantitatively described. For theremaining majority (83%), institutionsmay have policies that suggest whatactivities apply towards advancement butare open to interpretation as to what issufficient (quality and quantity) to achievepromotion and/or tenure success. Thiscondition doesnt appear to have changedmuch since a 1989 survey published in1991 by Parks and Riggs24 who statedthat research and publication generallyare considered in the evaluation process,but in practice, the expectation may not beexplicitly defined.

Promotion-earning librarians constitute38% (75 of 195) of the survey group withan additional 38% (75 of 195) of thelibrarians as tenure track. A total of 23%(45 of 195) of the librarians identifiedthemselves as not eligible for either pro-motion or tenure.

5% (7) 16% (23)

5% (8) 15% (22)

professional activities according to howimportant these activities were to thepromotion/tenure process at their indi-vidual institutions. Respondents not eli-gible for promotion and/or tenure wereinstructed to move on to the nextsection of the survey. The surveylanguage emphasized that this rankingprocess may be subjective, that is, basedon the perceptions of the individuallibrarian, his or her current rank, expe-rience, and personal philosophy. Duringthe analysis of the data, it becameapparent that the definition of tenure,which differs among institutions, neededto be considered in presenting results. InFlorida, a number of community col-leges define tenure as a continuingcontract. Tenure is awarded if thefaculty member meets criteria estab-

lishing, Editorship, Posters/Presentations,Service, and a miscellaneous groupingthat included Teaching, Grantsmanship,and other duties. Librarians were alsogiven the opportunity to write in addi-tional professional activities that werenot otherwise defined by the survey.The rating scale consisted of fivequalities: required, strongly recommen-ded, considered, considered but lessvalue, or not considered.

Perhaps the most time andlabor intensive of professional

activities, publishing books and/or articles is perceived as being

very important.

and/or of less value. Eighteen percentranked single authorship as not consid-ered in their process. Book reviewsappear to be considered (50%), stronglyrecommended (8%) or required (1%) inmany promotion and/or tenure processes.A large majority (79%) described in-house publications of marginal impor-tance, rating them only as considered,less considered, or not considered at allin the tenure and promotion process(Table 4).

Poster sessions appear to be impor-tant contributions to the promotion andtenure process with 50% of the respond-ents rating the activity as consideredwith an additional 24% rating posterpresentations as strongly recommendedor required. However, they do not standalone. In this survey, only two Florida

T e

e

)

)

)

)

)

0lished by the Florida Department ofEducation and the Board of Trusteesfor the college. Emphasis is placed onthe successful performance of teachingresponsibilities.25 Doctoral, masters andsome baccalaureate institutions normallyaward tenure on the basis of successfulteaching, research and service, with,depending on the institution, greatestemphasis on research and publication.26

Although some of these institutionsoffer both tenure track and non-tenuredlibrary positions, not eligible for tenureor promotion was an option on thesurvey. The few respondents whoappear to hold non-tenure track posi-tions at tenure awarding institutionschose that option. Therefore, sometables and figures differentiate betweenthe two types of tenured librarians formore accurate representations of thedata.

Professional activities were dividedinto categories including Research/Pub-

Perceptions of Promotion and

Requir

State chair (n = 146) 1% (2

State member (n = 146) 4% (6

National chair (n = 146) 0% (0

National member (n = 146) 3% (5

Institutional committee chair

(n = 145)

6% (8

Institutional committee member

(n = 145)

28% (4Perhaps the most time and laborintensive of professional activities, pub-lishing books and/or articles is per-ceived as being very important. Almostall tenure-earning librarians at baccalaur-eate, masters or doctoral institutions,(97%, 35 of 36), answered required orstrongly recommended (Table 3). Al-though publishing is perceived as beingrequired by fewer promotion-earninglibrarians (24%), 35% feel it is stronglyrecommended and an additional 28%reported that it is considered. By con-trast, only 6% of the tenured commun-ity college librarians deem publishing asstrongly recommended; while over 50%place lesser or no value on publishingas criteria for advancement.

When considering the total surveypopulation, single authorship is highlyvalued by 27% of the respondents but55% ranked it as only either considered

Table 6enure Respondents Toward the Valu

dStrongly

Recommended Considered

34% (49) 52% (76)

33% (48) 42% (62)

38% (55) 48% (70)

40% (58) 40% (58)

39% (57) 47% (68)

) 28% (41) 30% (44)academic librarians (1%) listed postersessions as their sole research or pub-lishing activity. This supports Gravoisfinding that poster sessions are noted inpromotion/tenure processes but areinsufficient if that is the only profes-sional activity. Poster sessions are seenas signs of professional growth andcompetence, not as publication.27 Asone would expect, national presentationsare strongly recommended or requiredby more of the participants (43%) thanpresentations given at state held confer-ences and meetings (29%). However,substantial numbers of participantsreported that both types of presentationsare considered (Table 4).

Somewhat surprisingly, journal editor-ship is perceived by 65% as considered;however, only 11% rate this activity asstrongly recommended and 24% of therespondents place little or no value on theactivity. A similar perception occurs withnewsletter editorship, which admittedly

of Selected Service Activities

ConsideredBut Less Value Not Considered

6% (9) 7% (10)

13% (19) 8% (11)

7% (10) 8% (11)

10% (14) 8% (11)

3% (4) 6% (8)

7% (10) 7% (10)

November 2004 439

Table 7Perceived Importance of Professional Activities Towards Tenure and Promotion

Ranking: TotalRespondents

Ranking:Tenure-trackrespondents

(Baccalaureate,Masters orDoctoral)

Ranking:Promotion-earning

respondents

Ranking:Tenure

(CommunityColleges)

respondents

Member of a University Committee (n = 145) 1 4* 2 1

Books and Articles (n = 146) 2 1 1 12*

External Review (n = 147) 3 3 3 8*

Chair of a University Committee (n = 145) 4 4* 8* 2

National Presentations (n = 146) 5* 2 7 12*

Member of a National Committee (n = 146) 5* 6 4 6*

Chair of a National Committee (n = 146) 7 7 8* 10*

Member of a State Committee (n = 146) 8 9* 5* 4

Chair of a State Committee (n = 146) 9 11* 5* 6*

State Presentations (n = 146) 10 13 10 10*

Single Author (n = 146) 11 8 12 14*

Poster Sessions (n = 146) 12 9* 11 14*

Teaching a Credit-based Course (n = 147) 13 15 14 3

Grants (n = 147) 14 11* 13 14*

In-house publications (n = 146) 15 16 15 5

2nd Graduate Degree (n = 145) 16 14 16 8*

Journal Editorship (n = 145) 17 17 17 17*

Book Reviews (n = 145) 18 18 18 17*

Newsletter Editorship (n = 145) 19 19 19 17*

Notes: (Combined totals for required and strongly recommended were ranked from 1-19 with #1 as the most important. Items with an asterisk indicate a tied ranking).

440

TheJournal

ofAcad

emic

Librarian

ship

Leysen and Black found that only 30%of the administrators indicated there wasgreater emphasis on publishing at thattime.29 This suggests a further study to

use it as a consideration in the finaldecision. Leysen and Black reported thatalmost two-thirds of the CarnegieResearch library administrators surveyed

Table 8Support for Travel

Full Travel Support Partial Travel Support No Travel Support

ral) n = 35 46% (16) 54% (19) 0% (0)

51% (37) 39% (28) 10% (7)

69% (25) 25% (9) 6% (2)

50% (4) 38% (3) 13% (1)

54% (82) 39% (59) 7% (10)

lumay cover a wide spectrum of publica-tions, from in-house to professional. Inthis case, 55% of the participants reportthat those efforts are considered while40% believe it is of less or no value in thepromotion and tenure process. Successwith grant writing is believed to be ofgreater value, with 23% rating it asrequired or strongly recommended and57% as considered. Somewhat like grants-manship, teaching a credit-based courseappears to be an important professionalactivity with 5% listing it as required,19% strongly recommended, and 55%considering it in their tenure and promo-tion processes (Table 4).

Participants were also asked whetherthey felt that their institutions currentlyplace a greater or a lesser emphasis onpublishing compared to requirements fiveyears ago. Of those who responded tothe question, 60% indicated that theirinstitution now places greater emphasison publishing in books or refereedjournals but 24% believe there is lesspressure to publish. A small numberindicated that there has been no changein their environment (7%), that they haveno opinion (3%), or that the question isnot relevant to their current situation(6%). When broken down further, 65%of the Florida librarians who wereeligible for promotion but not tenure,reported greater pressure to publish inthe last five years. Eighty-three percentof the tenure-track librarians at bacca-laureate, masters or doctoral institutions

Tenure-track (Baccalaureate, Masters or Docto



Not eligible for promotion or tenure n = 8

Total responses n = 151also reported greater pressure. Yet, only23% of the tenured community collegelibrarians feel more pressure to publish(Table 5). Studies performed in the midto late 1990s reported mixed findings.Thirty-nine percent of Tennessee aca-demic librarians described greateremphasis, but 36% felt requirementsremained the same while 23% reportedless or no change.28 In 1998, during astudy of Carnegie Research libraries,determine if directors and/or administra-tors perceptions differ greatly frompracticing librarians.

Service requirements, as perceived byall the Florida promotion and tenurerespondents are described in Table 6.Serving as chair or simply being amember of a state committee is consid-ered to have similar importance. Aslightly higher number rank service asa chair (38%) or a member (43%) of anational committee as required orstrongly recommended. Twenty-eightpercent believe institutional committeemembership is required. Chairing aninstitutional committee is strongly rec-ommended or required by 45% of therespondents. In the Parks and Riggs1989 survey, almost 97% of librarianswith faculty status state that service isreviewed for tenure and promotion.30

External review by library or fac-ulty peers is often a consideration intenure and promotion as evidenced by thelarge number of respondents (44%, 65 of147) that have external review as a require-ment for the promotion and tenure process.An additional 29% (42 of 147) eitherstrongly recommend external review or

TabSupport for Research ThroTenure-track

(Baccalaureate, MasterTs or Doctoral) n = 36




Total Responses n = 149indicated outside reviews were impor-tant or very important.31

External review by library orfaculty peers is often a

consideration in tenure andpromotion...

A second graduate degree, in additionto the MLS, is often encouraged inlibrarianship. It is interesting to note that20% (29 of 145) of the librariansresponding to this question believe thathaving or obtaining a second degree isrequired or strongly recommended forsuccess in advancement. An additional54% (79 of 145) think the secondmasters is a consideration towards pro-motion and/or tenure. In their 1989survey, Park and Riggs reported thatmore than 50% of the respondentsindicated a second masters was notnecessary to meet promotion or tenurerequirements.32 In this survey, of thelibrarians already holding second degrees

e 9gh the Allocation of TimeSabbatical and/orResearch Leave Available

92% (33)

59% (42)

49% (17)

29% (2)

63% (94)

November 2004 441

Figure 2Total Respondents Involved in Publishing Activities of Since 1995and responding to this question, a higherpercent (38%, 20 of 53) described thesecond degree as required or stronglyrecommended and 42% (22 of 53)marked it as considered. Twenty-onepercent (11 of 53) felt their seconddegree was of less value or not consi-dered during their process.

Table 7 displays the perceived impor-tance of various professional activities.When looking at the total response,acting as a member of a university

Number of Respondents Publis

Tenure (Baccalaureate Masters or Doctoral) n =




442 The Journal of Academic Librarianshipcommittee ranked highest in importancewith publishing and external reviewsconsidered the next most valued criteria.However, the publishing of books andarticles is ranked highest by the promo-tion and tenure (baccalaureate, masters,and doctoral) group but has a relativelylow ranking by the tenured communitycollege respondents. It is interesting tonote that book reviewing, although val-ued by library collection managers, is aservice that ranks near the bottom of the

Table 10hing Books, Refereed Articles, or Cha

Tenure-Earning Status

% PublishingAt Least One Book,Refereed Article or

Book Chapter

% PublishinAt LeastOne Book

37 78% (29) 22% (8)

59% (44) 13% (10)

19% (7) 8% (3)

20% (9) 2% (1)promotion and tenure ratings in allcategories.

SUPPORT

If publishing, national and state service,additional advanced degrees, and relevantprofessional activities are perceived to beneeded for tenure and promotion, howhave academic institutions responded tosupport these activities? In a previousstudy of Alabama librarians, 20%reported that travel support was generous

pters Based on Promotion or

g % PublishingAt Least One

Refereed Article

% PublishingAt Least One

Chapter

68% (25) 38% (14)

43% (32) 28% (21)

8% (3) 3% (1)

16% (7) 13% (6)

to unlimited, 43% inadequate and 34%adequate.33 In Florida, 93% of allrespondents reported at least partial travelsupport. Full travel support appears low-est for the tenure-track librarians atdoctoral, masters and baccalaureate insti-tutions (46%) and highest for those attenured community college libraries(69%). This study however, did notexplore specific funding levels or howmuch or what types of travel are eitherrequired or undertaken as part of efforts toadvance in rank or tenure. Obviously,trips to international or national confer-ences might entail much greater expensethan travel to state or local events andthereby affect individual responses.Travel support is further described inTable 8.

Research funds appear to be limitedacross the board. Of the 141 answersreceived, only twenty-three librarians(16%) reported the availability of fundingsupport. This is considerably lower thansupport levels reported by Cosgriff et al. in199034 for Association of Research Librar-ians, where about 43% of those surveyed

an interesting area to explore since theinterpretation of these benefits may varywidely from one institution to another.Funding for research and travel could bequantified in another study for moreaccurate comparisons.

RESEARCHANDPUBLISHINGACTIVITIES

Part III of the survey listed a variety ofactivities, ranging from book and chap-ter publications, journal and magazinepublishing, book reviews, public speak-ing presentations, and poster sessions.The participants were asked to respondif they had engaged in any of theseprofessional activities since 1995 and, ifso, to quantify the approximate numberof times they had published or partici-pated in that activity. A comment boxwas also offered for activities notcovered specifically in the survey.

This survey discovered that 46% (90of 196) of all the Florida academiclibrarians who responded have beenengaged in either book, book chapter,or refereed article publication since

books, book chapters, or refereedarticles.35 Mularski reported that 50.9%of all health science librarians, nation-wide, have produced at least one ofthese same types of publications, notingthat southern states ranked lower thanother regions of the country in terms ofproductivity.36 This survey appears toagree with the previously publishedsuggestion by others that the require-ments of promotion and tenure lead togreater research and/or publication.37

Fig. 2 illustrates the number ofrespondents that reported activity in pub-lishing since 1995. Of the Floridarespondents, 8% have published at leastone book in the field of library sciencewhile 15% have produced one or morebook chapters. A much smaller numberhave engaged in publishing books (4%) orchapters (10%) in fields other than libraryscience. Respondents were also asked toreport their publishing activity in refereedjournals, non-refereed magazines, andbook reviewing. Although anecdotal evi-dence might have implied that the num-bers would be higher, only 36% of thereceived funding for research and publica-tion. Participants were also asked if theywere allocated any time that could be spentspecifically on research projects. Sabbat-icals and/or research leave are available to63% of all of the responding librarians.Table 9 illustrates the availability of sup-port through the allocation of leave time.

Obviously, all means of support requirefurther investigation. The exact definitionof research leave and sabbaticals would be

Books in library science (n = 15)

Chapters in library science (n = 29)

Books outside library science (n = 8)

Chapters outside library science (n = 18)

Book reviews (n = 35)

Refereed print articles (n = 61)

Refereed electronic articles (n = 18)

Print magazine articles (n = 56)

Electronic magazine articles (n = 14)

Poster sessions (state or regional) (n = 31)

Poster sessions (national) (n = 40)

Presentations (state or regional) (n = 103)

Presentations (national) (n = 61)1995. However, when only promotion-earning librarians and tenure-tracklibrarians at baccalaureate, masters anddoctoral institutions were considered(excluding tenured librarians at com-munity colleges), 65% (73 of 112) havepublished in the formats describedabove. This compares well with Stew-arts report that 68% of librarians fromfour major Alabama universities wereengaged in research and writing either

Table 11Quantity of Publications Since 1995

One-two Three-five

100% (15) 0% (0)

97% (28) 3% (1)

75% (6) 25% (2)

50% (9) 44% (8)

29% (10) 26% (9)

54% (33) 33% (20)

78% (14) 22% (4)

63% (35) 29% (16)

50% (7) 29% (4)

87% (27) 10% (3)

75% (30) 15% (6)

57% (59) 23% (24)

52% (32) 33% (20)Florida respondents have published refer-eed articles since 1995. This is less thanthe 42% reported by Rogers survey, withregard to refereed article publication.38 Inaddition, 34% of all respondents to thesurvey have published in magazines andnon-refereed publications but only 19% ofthe respondents are engaged in bookreviewing as a professional activity.

In order to substantiate further theeffect promotion and tenure demands

Six-ten More than ten

0% (0) 0% (0)

0% (0) 0% (0)

0% (0) 0% (0)

0.% (0) 6% (1)

14% (5) 31% (11)

10% (6) 3% (2)

0% (0) 0% (0)

7% (4) 2% (1)

7% (1) 14% (2)

3% (1) 0% (0)

10% (4) 0% (0)

12% (12) 8% (8)

13% (8) 2% (1)

November 2004 443

have on publishing activity, the datawere examined according to the eligi-bility for, and type of, tenure and

speaking (Fig. 2). In this area, 68% (130of 192) responded that they had presentedat the state or national level and 31% (57

Table12

ComparisonofPerceived

Importance

ofSelectedProfessionalActivitiesto

ActualPerform

ance

Since

1995

%ofRespondents

PublishingAtLeast

OneBook,Chapter

orRefereed

Article

PerceptionThat

PublishingBooks

andArticlesis

Required

orStrongly

Recommended

%ofRespondents

MakingatLeast

OneNational

Presentation

PerceptionThat

NationalPresentations

are

Required

orStrongly

Recommended

%ofRespondents

MakingAtLeast

OneState

Presentation

PerceptionThat

State

Presentations

are

Required

orStrongly

Recommended

Tenure

(Baccalaureate

MastersorDoctoral)

78%

(29)n=37

97%

(35)n=36

54%

(20)n=37

81%

(29)n=36

65%

(24)n=37

33%

(12)n=36

Promotion-earning

(allinstitutions)

59%

(44)n=75

59%

(44)n=74

37%

(28)n=75

43%

(32)n=74

59%

(44)n=75

36%

(27)n=74

Tenure

(CommunityColleges)

19%

(7)n=36

6%

(2)n=36

14%

(5)n=36

6%

(2)n=36

42%

(15)n=36

8%

(3)n=36

444 The Journal of Academic Librarianshippromotion. Table 10 summarizes theresults. Clearly, in overall productivity,tenure requirements strongly motivatelibrarians at baccalaureate, masters ordoctoral institutions. Seventy-eight per-cent of the tenured librarians haveengaged in the publishing of at leastone book, book chapter or refereedarticle. This group has consistently out-produced colleagues in the individualcategories of publication as well.

Clearly, in overallproductivity, tenure

requirements stronglymotivate librarians at

baccalaureate, masters ordoctoral institutions.

Although not to the same degree astenure, requirements for promotion, asexpected from the perceptions expressedduring this study, actively encourage thoselibrarians (59%) to engage in research andpublication. Interestingly, 20% of thelibrarians who described themselves asineligible for promotion or tenure, pre-sumably with less encouragement, arepublishing, and thus on a par with tenuredcommunity college colleagues. In thisstudy, with the exception of the lattergroup, librarians are engaged in thefollowing publishing activities in decreas-ing order: refereed article, book chapter,and finally books. This is comparable tothe type of publications most frequentlyproduced by Penn State librarians.39

Of the Florida authors publishing atleast one book, book chapter, or refereedarticle, twenty-one of the authors aremale and sixty-nine are female (n = 90).In analyzing these figures with respect tothe gender distribution of the total surveyrespondents (44 males and 152 females),this study indicates that male (48%) andfemale (45%) librarians may be publish-ing at similar rates. A more comprehen-sive statistical evaluation is not possiblewith this survey data. In comparison,Joswick noted that approximately 40% ofthe Illinois authors were male comparedto 60% female.40

Finally, the participants were asked tocomment on their involvement in public-of 186) had participated in at least oneposter session. State and regional confer-ences appear to be slightly more popularvenues than national conferences. Whileposter sessions are likely to be one-time-only or limited activities, librarians seemto engage repeatedly in presentations.

Of the respondents that have beeninvolved in professional activities, Table11 illustrates the breakdown in quantity.Weller et al. reported on the refereedarticle productivity of academic librariansin the United States between 1993 and1997. To summarize, 94% of the authorsin that study produced 1-2 articles, 5.4%produced 3-5, and less than 1% published6-10.41 In the current Florida study, 54%of the respondents have published 1-2articles in peer-reviewed print journals,33% produced 3-5, 10% 6-10, and 3%more than ten.

It is interesting to compare actualreported professional activities in pub-lishing and presentations to the perceivedimportance of the same activities (Table12). The tenure-track librarians at bacca-laureate, masters, and doctoral institu-tions placed the greatest importance onthese activities and, not surprisingly, theyhave the highest reported activity.Although 97% of this group perceivedpublishing refereed articles, chapters, andbooks as required or strongly recommen-ded for tenure, only 78% reportedactivity in this area since 1995. Thedifference might be due, in part, to thecurrent status of each librarian in atenure-earning position. Those who havealready been awarded tenure may havereorganized their responsibilities andgoals. Those who are going for tenureare still striving to meet institutionalexpectations with regards to researchand publication. Promotion-earninglibrarians appear to be publishing at arate consistent with their perceivedexpectations. Community college librar-ians do not consider publishing andpresentations to be of much value intheir tenure process; however, they arestill participating to some extent inthese activities. While presentations atthe state level are not considered byany of the groups as highly valuabletowards promotion or tenure, a largenumber of librarians are involved inthis activity, possibly due to thenumber of opportunities to participatein state-wide conferences and meetings

and/or the ease of acceptance. Furtheranalysis of perceived and actual activ-ities would be an interesting area forresearch.

Community college librariansdo not consider publishingand presentations to be ofmuch value in their tenure

process...

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, Florida academic librariansappear to be publishing at a rate

consistent with librarians from otherparts of the country. The survey alsoimplies that those in promotion-earningand/or tenure positions at doctoral,research and masters level institutionsdo feel more pressure to performresearch and publish to achieve careeradvancement and are engaging in thoseactivities to a higher degree than theircolleagues.

As found in other case studies,requirements of Florida academic insti-tutions are not rigorously defined inmost instances. Differences betweentenured and promotion processes amongFlorida academic librarians could beexplored further. Although fairly repre-sented in the survey, this studys rawnumbers are too low to make definitivestatements regarding the research pro-

ductivity at four-year baccalaureate andmasters colleges.

Professional/faculty status and contrac-tual agreements for Florida librarians aresimilar to those reported for other areas ofthe country. Support for professionaactivities also appears to be comparablewith national colleagues. This studyestablished several benchmarks for Flor-ida academic librarians with regard tofaculty status, perceived tenure and pro-motion requirements, service and researchproductivity, and levels of support forthese important activities. The informa-tion may aid individual librarians insetting realistic expectations and goalsduring the promotion and tenure processand it is hoped that these findings wilencourage other comparative studies ofacademic librarians.

Part I: Academic Librarian Data

A. Gender: Female Male

B. Length of annual contract: 9 months 12 months Other

C. Do you have a second MA, MS or a PhD? Yes No

If yes, in what subject area(s)?

D. Please check the title that best fits your position:

Faculty

Professional, not faculty

Faculty, tenure-track

Faculty, promotion earning but not tenured

Faculty at school of library/information studies

APPENDIX AThe SurveyPart II: Institutional Requirements

A. Is your position eligible for tenure

and/or promotion?

Tenure and promotion

Promotion only

Not eligible for tenure or promotion

(please proceed to Part III)

B. Does your institutional promotion

and/or tenure policy state specific

written quantitative requirements (i.e.,

minimum number of publications, etc.)

Yes No If yes, please give a

brief description:November 2004 445l

lOther, please describe:

E. Is your position considered: Full time Part time

F. Is your position: Permanent Temporary

C. Recognizing that there may be different

expectations for each level of promotion,

based on your current status, what is your

perception of the requirements at your

institution.

How are the following activities considered

for tenure/promotion at your institution?

Research/Publishing

1. Publishing (articles or books):

___ Required ___ Strongly

recommended

___ Considered ___ Considered

but less value

___ Not considered

2. Single Authorship

(as opposed to joint authorship)

for journal or book publications:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

3. Publishing book reviews:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

4. In-house publications (pathfinders,

annotated bibliographies, tip sheets,

lists, etc):


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

Editorship

5. Journal editor:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

6. Newsletter editor:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

Posters/Presentations

7. Poster sessions at state or national

conferences:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

8. Presentations at state conferences:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

9. Presentations at national conferences:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

Service

10. Service at the state level,

committee chair:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

11. Service at the state level,

committee membership:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

446 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

12. Service at the national level,

committee chair:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

13. Service at the national level,



recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

14. Service at the institutional level,

committee chair:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

15. Service at the institutional level,



recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

Other

16. Teaching a credit-based course:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

17. Second graduate degree:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

18. External reviews by library peers:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

19. Success at grant proposals:


recommended


but less value

___ Not considered

D. In your opinion, during the last

5 years, has refereed journal and

book publication by librarians been

given a greater or a lesser emphasis?

Greater

Lesser

Comments:

E. To your knowledge, does your

library provide?

1. Annual research leave: Yes No

2. Sabbaticals for librarians: Yes No

3. Travel funds (full reimbursement): Yes No

4. Travel funds (partial reimbursement): Yes No

5. Research funds: Yes No

F. Who decides on promotion/tenure?

Please check all that apply:

1. Library supervisor/director

2. Peer review committee

3. Institution-wide review committee

4. Institutions administration

5. Other (please describe):

November 2004 447

Part III: Publishing Data

Since 1995, have you published:

A1. Books in library science: Yes No

A2. Total number of books: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

Publishers of books to which you have contributed:


B1. Chapters in library science books: Yes No

B2. Total number of chapters: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

Publishers of books to which you have contributed chapters:


C1. Books in a field other than Library Science: Yes No

C2. Total number of books: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

Please list general subject areas:

Publishers of books to which you have contributed outside the field of library science:


D1. Chapters in books that are not related to library science: Yes No

D2. Total number of chapters: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

Please list subject areas:

Publishers of books to which you have contributed chapters outside the field of library science:


E1. Book reviews: Yes No

E2. Total number of reviews: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

Titles of journals where you have published reviews:

Since 1995, have you published in:

F1. Refereed (peer-reviewed) journals: Yes No

F2. Total number of articles in print sources: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

F3. Total number of articles in electronic-only sources: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

Titles of journals in which you have published articles:

Since 1995, have you published in:

G1. Non-refereed journals or magazines: Yes No

G2. Total number of articles in print sources: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

G3. Total number of articles in electronic-only sources: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

Titles of magazines in which you have published articles:

Since 1995, have you presented:

H1. Poster sessions: Yes No

H2. If yes, how many at the national level: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

H3. How many at the state or regional level: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

Since 1995, have you participated in:

I1. Public-speaking presentations: Yes No

I2. If yes, how many at the national level: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

I3. How many at the state or regional level: Zero 12 35 610 More than 10

J1. Other publications or professional activities not mentioned above

(please describe content and number):

Are there any additional comments that you would like to make regarding

academic library professional requirements in Florida

448 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Part IV: Institutional Data

In order to make comparisons between like institutions, it is necessary to know the size and type of institution where you are employed. This

information is available using the Carnegie Classification and the American Library Directory. I f you are willing to provide the name of the

institution where you are employed, we would be happy to look up the information for you.

Name of Institution:

Campus (if applicable):

OR

If you would prefer to have the survey information remain anonymous, we would appreciate having you answer a few basic questions so that we

will have a basis for comparison. Remember, we will not publish institution-specific information without prior permission.

A. Please indicate the organizational type that most closely describes your institution:

Public university (4 year + Graduate level)

Public university (4 year + Graduate level), Branch campus

Public college (4 year)

Public community college (2 year)

Private college (4 year)

Private college (4 year + Graduate level)

Special (Law, Medical, etc.)

Other

Please describe:

B. Please indicate the approximate size of student body (headcount) at your institution:

Less than 2000 students (headcount)

20015000 students (headcount)

500110,000 students (headcount)

10,00125,000 students (headcount)

More than 25,000 students (headcount)

C. Please indicate the approximate size of your library collection:

C1. Approximate number of monographs:

Fewer than 10,000 volumes

10,001100,000 volumes

100,001500,000 volumes

More than 500,000 volumes

C2. Please indicate the approximate number of journal subscriptions (please include print

subscription and full electronic (pdf/scanned titles, not aggregator titles):

Fewer than 500 titles

5011000 titles

10012000 titles

20013000 titles

30014000 titles

40015000 titles

More than 5000 titles

D. Please provide the Carnegie Classification for your institution:

The following web site provides easy access to Carnegie Classification by institution

name: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/CIHE2000/PartIIfiles/partII.htm

Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive

Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive

Masters Colleges and Universities I

November 2004 449

Masters Colleges and Universities II

Baccalaureate Colleges-Liberal Arts

ic

a

rie

th erNOTES AND REFERENCES

1. John M. Budd & Charles A. Seavey,Characteristics of Journal Authorshipby Academic Librarians, College andResearch Libraries 51 (September 1990):463470;Sylvia C. Krausse & Janice F. Sieburth,Patterns in Authorship in Library Jour-nals by Academic Librarians, The Seri-als Librarian 9 (Spring 1985): 127138;W. Bede Mitchell & Mary Reichel,Publish or Perish: A dilemma for Aca-demic Librarians, College and ResearchLibraries 60 (May 1999): 232243;Betsy Park & Robert Riggs, Status of theProfession: A 1989 National Survey ontenure and Promotion Policies for Aca-demic Librarians, College and ResearchLibraries 52 (May 1991): 275289;Paula D. Watson, Production of Schol-arly Articles by Academic Librarians andLibrary School Faculty, College andResearch Libraries 46 (July 1985):334342;Ann C. Weller, Julie M. Hurd, & StephenE. Wiberley Jr., Publication Patterns ofU.S. Academic Librarians from 1993 to1997, College and Research Libraries 60(July 1999): 352362;Mickey Zemon & Alice H. Bahr, AnAnalysis of Articles by College Librar-ians, College and Research Libraries 59

Baccalaureate Colleges-General

Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges

Associates Colleges

Specialized institutions: Schools of art, mus

Specialized institutions: Schools of business

Specialized institutions: Theological semina

Other

Please describe:

By submitting this survey, you are agreeing to(September 1998): 422432.2. John Cosgriff, Donald Kenney, & Gail

McMillan, Support for Publishing atAcademic Libraries: How much Exists?Journal of Academic Librarianship 16(May 1990): 9497;Della H. Darby & Kimberly C. Weath-erford, Academic Librarian Status andBenefits in Alabama, The AlabamaLibrarian 52 (2002): 1319;Steven E. Rogers, Support for Researchand Publishing in Tennessees AcademicLibraries, Tennessee Librarian: Quar-terly Journal of the Tennessee LibraryAssociation 48 (Spring 1996): 3543.

450 The Journal of Academic Librarianship3. Richard L. Hart, Scholarly Publicationby University Librarians: A Study at PennState, College and Research Libraries60 (September 1999): 454462;Kathleen E. Joswick, Article PublicationPatterns of Academic Librarians: AnIllinois Case, College and ResearchLibraries 60 (July 1999): 340349;Carol A. Mularski, Pamela S. Bradigan, &John A. Prior, Academic Health Scien-ces Librarians Publication Patterns, Bul-letin of the Medical Library Association79 (April 1991): 168177;Rogers, Support for Research and Pub-lishing in Tennessees Academic Libra-ries, pp. 3543;Sharon L. Stewart, Publication Require-ments for Academic Librarians: A SnapQshot of the Big Picture, Southeastern LibQrarian 43 (Spring/Summer 1993): 1113.

4. Darby & Weatherford, AcademicLibrarian Status and Benefits in Ala-bama, p. 13;Joswick, Article Publication Patterns ofAcademic Librarians, p. 340;Weller, Hurd, and Wiberley, PublicationPatterns of U.S. Academic Librariansfrom 1993 to 1997, pp. 354360.

5. Southern Association of Colleges andSchools, Commission on Colleges:2003 Member List. Southern Associa-tion of Colleges and Schools. Available:http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/memlistaug2003.pdf. pp. 46. (February 27, 2004).

, and design

nd management

s and other faith-related institutions

e confidentiality conditions set forth in the cov6. Joswick, Article Publication Patterns ofAcademic Librarians, p. 340.

7. Watson, Production of ScholarlyArticles by Academic Librarians andLibrary School Faculty, pp. 334342.

8. Krausse & Sieburth, Patterns in Author-ship in Library Journals by AcademicLibrarians, pp. 127138.

9. Budd & Seavey, Characteristics ofJournal Authorship by Academic Librar-ians, pp. 463470.

10. Park & Riggs, Status of the Profession,pp. 275289.

11. Zemon & Bahr, An Analysis of Articlesby College Librarians, p. 431.12. Weller, Hurd, & Wiberly, PublicationPatterns of U.S. Academic Librariansfrom 1993 to 1997, pp. 352362.

13. Mitchell & Reichel, Publish or Perish?p. 240.

14. Stewart, Publication Requirements forAcademic Librarians, pp. 1113.

15. Rogers, Support for Research and Pub-lishing in Tennessees Academic Libra-ries, p. 42.

16. Mularski, Bradigan, & Prior, AcademicHealth Sciences Librarians PublicationPatterns, pp. 168177.

17. Hart, Scholarly Publication by Univer-sity Librarians, pp. 454462.

18. Joswick, Article Publication Patterns ofAcademic Librarians, pp. 340349.

19. Darby &Weatherford, Academic Librar-ian Status and Benefits in Alabama,p. 13;Hart, Scholarly Publication by Univer-sity Librarians, p. 455;Mitchell & Reichel, Publish or Perish?p. 235;Mularski, Bradigan, & Prior, AcademicHealth Sciences Librarians PublicationPatterns, p. 169;Rogers, Support for Research and Pub-lishing in Tennessees Academic Libra-ries, p. 36;Stewart, Publication Requirements forAcademic Librarians, pp. 1113.

20. Pamela L. Alreck, The Survey ResearchHandbook, (Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin,

letter.1985) p. 45.21. Carnegie Foundation, Carnegie Founda-

tion for the Advancement of Teach-ing: Category Definitions. Available:http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/CIHE2000/defNotes/Definitions.htm (March 2, 2004).

22. Darby & Weatherford, AcademicLibrarian Status and Benefits in Ala-bama, p. 14;Rogers, Support for Research and Pub-lishing in Tennessees Academic Libra-ries, p. 37.

23. Darby &Weatherford, Academic Librar-ian Status andBenefits inAlabama, p. 14;

Rogers, Support for Research and Pub-lishing in Tennessees Academic Libra-ries, p. 36.

24. Parks & Riggs, Status of the Profes-sion, pp. 282283.

25. Florida Administrative Code, 6A.14.0411(Darby 1996);Valencia Community College, College-wide Faculty Handbook 2001-2002 ,p. 48. Available: http://www.valenciac-c.edu/pdf/hand.pdf (March 4, 2004);St. Petersburg College Faculty Manual,Available: http://www.spjc.edu/central/ht/Policies/Faculty-Manual-9-17.htm (Feb-ruary 25, 2004);David B. Mock, What is the CommunityCollege? A Primer for Four Year Collegeand University Historians, (Organizationof American Historians, 1999) Available:http://www.oah.org/pubs/commcoll/mock.html (February 25, 2004).

26. Higher Education in the United States: AnEncyclopedia, 2002, s.v. Research andScholarship.;University of Florida, Guidelines andInformation Regarding the Tenure, per-

manent status and Promotion Process for20032004 , Available: http://www.aa.ufl.edu/aa/aapers/TNP0304.pdf (March 4,2004);Stetson University, Tenure, Promotion andEvaluation for Library Faculty: Policiesand Procedures, (2003), Available: http://www.stetson.edu/library/promotion.doc(March 4, 2004).

27. JimGravois, Poster Sessions, Promotion,and Publishing: Is there a Connection?Journal of Academic Librarianship 25(January 1999): 40.


29. Joan M. Leysen, & William K. Black,Peer review in carnegie research libraries,College and Research Libraries 59(November 1998): 515.

30. Parks &Riggs, Status of the Profession,p. 283.

31. Leysen & Black, Peer Review in Car-negie Research Libraries, p. 515.

32. Parks &Riggs, Status of the Profession,p. 283.

33. Darby &Weatherford, Academic Librar-ian Status and Benefits in Alabama,p. 15.

34. Cosgriff, Kenney, & McMillan, Supportfor Publishing at Academic Libraries,pp. 9596.

35. Stewart, Publication Requirements forAcademic Librarians, p. 12.

36. Mularski, Bradigan, & Prior, AcademicHealth Sciences Librarians PublicationPatterns, p. 169.

37. Krausse & Sieburth, Patterns in Author-ship in Library Journals by AcademicLibrarians, p. 138;Mitchell & Reichel, Publish or Perish?p. 240.


39. Hart, Scholarly Publication by Univer-sity Librarians, p. 458.

40. Joswick, Article Publication Patterns ofAcademic Librarians, p. 342.

41. Weller, Hurd, & Wiberley, PublicationPatterns of U.S. Academic Librariansfrom 1993 to 1997, p. 357.November 2004 451

Research, publication, and service patterns of Florida academic librariansIntroductionLiterature ReviewMethodology

ResultsDemographicsPromotion and tenure eligibilityPerception of promotion and tenure requirements

SupportResearch and publishing activities

ConclusionsThe surveyNotes and References

Documents

Research, publication, and service patterns of Florida academic librarians