2019
DOI: 10.1353/lib.2019.0039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scope of Work, Roles, and Responsibilities for Academic Librarians: Tenure-Track vs. Non-Tenure-Track Professionals

Abstract: The purpose of this multi-institutional study is to determine how many academic libraries have chosen to institute a two-track system for their librarians: tenure-track faculty and non-tenure-track faculty. It will approach this inquiry in a two-fold manner, first with a survey questionnaire sent to library deans or directors of research libraries and then with the collection and analysis of formal policy documents from these libraries defining the expectations and work of librarians on the two tracks. This st… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 15 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…16 A study from 2019 surveyed the scope of work, roles, and responsibilities for academic librarians, both tenured and non. 17 Surveys were completed for 28 institutions and administration, defined as "management of branch library/service/unit/staff/faculty," was listed as the second most prevalent responsibility of tenure-track librarians at those institutions. However, their analysis of tenure documentation revealed no clear pathway for the inclusion of management responsibilities in tenure expectations and applications.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 A study from 2019 surveyed the scope of work, roles, and responsibilities for academic librarians, both tenured and non. 17 Surveys were completed for 28 institutions and administration, defined as "management of branch library/service/unit/staff/faculty," was listed as the second most prevalent responsibility of tenure-track librarians at those institutions. However, their analysis of tenure documentation revealed no clear pathway for the inclusion of management responsibilities in tenure expectations and applications.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%