AVAILABLE from Stanford University Libraries, Stanford ,University, Stanford, California 94305
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENt RESUME' ED 108 564 IR 001.933 TITLE Report of the Commission On Librarianship at . Stanford. INSTITUTION' Stanford Univ., Calif. Libraries. PUB DATE Mar.75 NOTE 144p. AVAILABLE FROM Stanford University Libraries, Stanford ,University, Stanford, California 94305 ' EDPS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$6.97, PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Cbtmunication (Thought Transfer) ;Employment Practices; *Governing Boards; Job Analysis; *Librarians; Library Instruction; Library Research; Library Role; Library Surveys; Personnel Data; Petsonnel Evaluation; *Personnel Policy; Professional Continuing Education; *Professional Recognition; Questionnaires; Sabbatical Leaves; SalarieS; *Universi,ty Libraries IDENTIFIERS *Stanford- University ABSTPACT The Commission on Librarianship at Stanford was' created in May, 1972, to examine the role and status of librarians at the university including professional relationships, effective use of librarians, salaries and personnel practices,'arid the involiement of librarians'in the library and university environment. The Commission's study groups conducted their inquiry through literature reviews and thrbugh questionnaires distribuA4 at Stanford and at other academic and research libraries A the United States. The prime recommendation ofethe study was that a tibrariacls Assembly be founded consisting of all librArians it the university. The assembly would serve to improve communication between librarians, increase staff involvement in policy formation, and formulate recommendations to the chief library administrative officers on library. operations and personnel policies. The study algo examined the role and responsibilities of ,Stanford librarians in terms of collection development, bibliographic control, public service, library instruction, and management. TVenty-two additional recommendations were made concerning salaries, personnel classification schedules, personnel practices, and employment benefits for librarians. (SL) o Ito #31g3k#301c4c*###*##*#*#######*#*##########f#31c*############################## Documents acquired by ERIC include many inforkal unpublished * materials .not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available. nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality * * of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions EPIC makes available * * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not * responsible for fRe qualityofthe original document. Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. _ * ****************************************4i****************************** 0 REPORT OF THL COMMISSION 'ON LIBRARIANSHIP AT STANFORD OP AAAAA , 1 S OSARTAAINT SOUCATION L MIELPAAA NATIONAL INSTITUTEOP EDUCATION HAS BEEN REPRO THIS DOSUMENT AS RECEIVED FROM OUCEO VtACTLY011IGANIEATION ORIGIN THE PERSON OR OF VIEW OROPINIONS VIAT MG IT POINTSNECESSARILY REPRE STATED 00 NOT INSTITUTE OF NATIONAL SENT OF FictAL OR POLICY EOUCATtON POSITION Oa. O March 1975 Im 1r) A, P4 3 REPORT OF THECOMMISSION ' ON LIBRARIANSHIP AT STANFORD Garrett H. Bowles,Chairman , Judith A. Moomaw, Vice-Chairman William P. Allan Robert H: Breyfogle Jean L. Finch Sandra K. Korn Janice M. Lane Frederick C. Lynden Coralia Serafim ;Carol Turn March 1975 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background: the Commission on Librarianship 1 II. The Primary Recommendation: Librarians' Assembly 7 ItI. Responsibilities and Functions of Stanford Librarians 13 A. Collection Development 14 B. Bibliographic Control 15 C. Public Service . 16 D. Library Instruction 17 E. Generalist/Specialist 21 F. Management 23 - IV. Professional Concerns 31 A. Appointmefit, Compensation, Work Environment 31 4 1. Criteria for Appointment' .31 2. Appointmentyrocedure 34 Classification 35, 4. Compensation 43 I 5. Working Environment 56 6. Security of Employ*nt. 61 7. Peer Review 63 8. Appeals Procedure 66 B. Professional Development 67 1. Orientation 67 2. Career Counseling 68 3. Professional Organizations 69 4. Professional Leave 70 5. Continuing Education 71 C. Recognition and Status 74 1. Instructor/Librarian 76 2. Academic Council 76. - 3. University Committees 78 4. Faculty Relationships 78 D. Equality and Uniformity 81 1. Status of Women in Librarianship 81 2. Coordinate Libraries 84 V. Implementation 90 VI. Bibliography 93 APPENDICES . 1 - Charge to the CommissiononLibrarianship at Stanford 103 II Professional Salary Adjustments, by Earl Borgeson 105%. III - Stanford Librarians'Questionnaire ---1O7 IV - Librarians' StatusQuestionnaire -.112 V - Peer ReviewQuestionnaire 118 VI - Library OrganizationQuestionnaire 120 VII - Historical Background 122 VIII - Summary of Recommendations 128 4 1 I. BACKGROUND: THE-COMMISSION ON LIBRARIANSHIP The Commission on LibrarianshiOt Stanford was created in May, 1.972, by David C. Weber,"Direttor of University Libraries, with the encouragement of the Stanford University, ybrarians Ass6Ciation (SULA) and the. University Library Council. tts charge was. ) to examine the role an"dstafus of librarians at'thekUniversity, //- including:' professjonal relationships within the University,. mans of facilitating the effective use of librarians, suitable recognition of the services' of librarians to the community, aspects of appointment, promotion and pei.guisites, involvement of librarians in formal and informal teaching; .,and other aspects of their working environment. In addition, the Commission was to consider "the question of the most effective fOrum or organization through whichlibrarians cern, as r individuals,and as a university professional groups share in concern for- and contribution to higher education, research, and institutional governance and development" (1). The Commission was intended to be representative of all librarians at Stanford. It initially comprised five men and seven women,- reflecting the male/female ratio in the libraries (2), and representing all ranks, 1) See Appendix Ifor the charge.. 2) There are 77 women librarians and 42 men librarians in, all the libraries at Stanford, excludinqpdirectors and, in the case of the Hoover Institution, faculty members who serve as curators. / - t, 2 years of experience, job assignments and responsibilities. Professional werience ranged from less than one tb more than thirty-five years. Job assignments spanned reference, cataloging and acquisitions in undergraduate, graduate, branch and coordinate librar4es. Responsibilities -ranged from those of a beginn g professional to those , of a senior administrator. Educational baCkgrounds also varied. All members of.the Commission had a bacheqr's degree in a 'supject field and, .a profpssional degree in libarianship; some had graduate subject degrees, master's or doctorate, or were working toward such degrees. Ten members were from the University Libraries and two were from the -1 `Coordinateybraries. Of the original twelve members of the Commission, two resigned: one du to, illness; the other due'ue to early retirement. / One replacement was ppointed (3). 4. There haye been three phases of the Commission's investigation:' .t . During the first phase of investigation, the Comrission formed two subcommittees: the Role of the Library and the Librarian, and the Recognition pf the Library and -the Librarian:Each subcommittee undertook an exhaustive literature search and 'engaged in investigative discussions which were developed intwa questionnaire probing various 9 3)Since the Commission began several members have ffeen promoted: to Librarian II, Janice M. Lane (1974); to Librarian I1i., Robert H. Breyfogle (1973); and to Librarian IV, Jean L. Finch (1973), Sandra K. Korn (1974), and Frederick C. Lynden (1973). Carol Turner transferred to Technical Information Services andthen to Government Documents. 8April Stenzel and Jack Plotkin resigned duPing the first year of the Commission'. .Peter Stangl was appointed as a replacement, but . unofficially withdrew. Coral.ia Serafim resigned from the Hoover Institution irNeptember, 1974, although she continued to contribute to this report. See also Appendix I. 6 3 .11 aspects of librarianship at Stanford(4). Another questionnaire was developed and 'sent to selected academicand\resedrch libraries ,throughout thc. United Statei in an attempt togather detailed te, ( information concerning, the library community(5). The results of these trio questionnaires were tabulated, and the Commissionthen called a meeting for all librarians atStanford to discuss the data obtained from 4 the questionnaire -wand to inform the staff ofthe future plans of the Commission. In early.197S.. the Commission divided intofive study groups, each responsible .for a specific area of librarians(i ip: library instruction; peer review; library organization;definition, classification, and criteria for appointment and promotion; andsalaries. ° Each study group reviewed the pertinent literature, sentquestionnaireS,to other institutions (6), and examined the situationof librarian,and other professionals atcStanford ust and present, inrelatiOn to its.topic. Individual reports, summarizing findingsand making recommendations, met in a were then compiled. Throughout this phase the Commission often committee of the whole to discuss variousaspects of_ the itudy,groups' investigations. During December, 1973, and January,1974, the S Commission distributed working paperswhich were summaries of study 4) The Stanford Librarians' Ouestionnaire.wasdistributed in November, 1972. See Appendix III. , 5) See Appendii 6) See