Librarian faculty status: Exploring inequality regimes in a comparative case study

IF 2.5 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
James Wiser
{"title":"Librarian faculty status: Exploring inequality regimes in a comparative case study","authors":"James Wiser","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Faculty status for librarians is one of the most debated topics within academic librarianship (Bailey &amp; Becher, 2022). Professional associations argue that faculty status benefits librarians, but little empirical work has explored how faculty status plays out in real-world settings (Galbraith, Garrison, &amp; Hales, 2016). This study investigates whether faculty status helps librarians overcome barriers using a comparative case study of two academic libraries representing polarity on this issue. One library offers librarians tenure-track faculty appointments; the other classifies librarians as staff. Through qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews, the study explores administrative obstacles faced by librarians and whether faculty status ameliorates them. This study also examines if debates over librarian faculty status ignore inequality regimes (Acker, 2006) that may appear in both faculty and staff settings. Surprisingly, findings reveal faculty status is associated with more workplace hierarchies and stress, especially for female librarians. Contrary to claims made by faculty status proponents, most librarians feel equally undervalued by disciplinary faculty regardless of status. Ultimately, blanket recommendations for faculty status seem ineffective, and nuanced solutions tailored to local contexts better serve librarians. This study encourages an honest dialogue to empower librarians based on individual needs, not rigid assumptions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"50 4","pages":"Article 102887"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009913332400048X/pdfft?md5=6a9b00a024aac92d0f029d07c1874d34&pid=1-s2.0-S009913332400048X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009913332400048X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Faculty status for librarians is one of the most debated topics within academic librarianship (Bailey & Becher, 2022). Professional associations argue that faculty status benefits librarians, but little empirical work has explored how faculty status plays out in real-world settings (Galbraith, Garrison, & Hales, 2016). This study investigates whether faculty status helps librarians overcome barriers using a comparative case study of two academic libraries representing polarity on this issue. One library offers librarians tenure-track faculty appointments; the other classifies librarians as staff. Through qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews, the study explores administrative obstacles faced by librarians and whether faculty status ameliorates them. This study also examines if debates over librarian faculty status ignore inequality regimes (Acker, 2006) that may appear in both faculty and staff settings. Surprisingly, findings reveal faculty status is associated with more workplace hierarchies and stress, especially for female librarians. Contrary to claims made by faculty status proponents, most librarians feel equally undervalued by disciplinary faculty regardless of status. Ultimately, blanket recommendations for faculty status seem ineffective, and nuanced solutions tailored to local contexts better serve librarians. This study encourages an honest dialogue to empower librarians based on individual needs, not rigid assumptions.

图书管理员的教师身份:在比较案例研究中探索不平等制度
图书馆员的院系地位是学术图书馆学中争论最多的话题之一(Bailey & Becher, 2022)。专业协会认为,教师地位对图书馆员有利,但很少有实证研究探讨教师地位在现实环境中是如何发挥作用的(Galbraith, Garrison, & Hales, 2016)。本研究通过对两所学术图书馆的比较案例研究,调查了教职员工身份是否有助于图书馆员克服障碍,这两所图书馆在这一问题上呈现两极分化。一家图书馆为图书馆员提供终身教职;另一家图书馆则将图书馆员归类为职员。通过对半结构式访谈的定性分析,本研究探讨了图书馆员面临的行政障碍,以及教职员身份是否能改善这些障碍。本研究还探讨了有关图书馆员教职身份的争论是否忽视了可能同时出现在教职员工环境中的不平等制度(Acker,2006 年)。令人惊讶的是,研究结果显示,教职员工身份与更多的工作场所等级制度和压力有关,尤其是对女性图书馆员而言。与教职员工地位支持者的说法相反,大多数图书馆员认为,无论其地位如何,都同样被学科教职员工低估了价值。归根结底,关于教师地位的一揽子建议似乎是无效的,而因地制宜的细微解决方案才能更好地为图书馆员服务。本研究鼓励开展真诚的对话,根据图书馆员的个人需求而不是僵化的假设来赋予他们权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Academic Librarianship
Journal of Academic Librarianship INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Librarianship, an international and refereed journal, publishes articles that focus on problems and issues germane to college and university libraries. JAL provides a forum for authors to present research findings and, where applicable, their practical applications and significance; analyze policies, practices, issues, and trends; speculate about the future of academic librarianship; present analytical bibliographic essays and philosophical treatises. JAL also brings to the attention of its readers information about hundreds of new and recently published books in library and information science, management, scholarly communication, and higher education. JAL, in addition, covers management and discipline-based software and information policy developments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信