The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.elsevier.com/

    In this report, we review social science and library studies literatures on librarian-faculty relations, and present a preliminary sociological analysis of these relations. We find an asymmetrical disconnection between both groups: Librarians and faculty identify a disconnection that keeps the two separated, but only librarians view this disconnection as problematic.
    This paper discusses librarian-faculty relations from a sociological T perspective, drawing on exploratory research conducted for the meeting of the American Librarian Association (ALA) in June 2002, and a presentation to the Academic and Research Libraries Division (ARLD) of the Minnesota Library Association (MLA) meeting in April 2003. The first two authors of this report--Lars Christiansen and Mindy Stombler, professors of sociology--were invited to discuss librarian-faculty relations from a sociological perspective on an ALA panel entitled "Games Academics Play: Mastering the Social Psychology of Faculty/Librarian Relationships." Also invited were James Emshoff, professor of psychology, and John Budd, professor of information science and learning technologies. Prior to our participation in the ALA session, Christiansen, Stombler, and Emshoff had limited knowledge of librarians' perceptions of the status of librarian-faculty relations, librarians' concerns about librarian-faculty relations, and librarianship in general. In these ways, the nonlibrarian faculty on the panel were, we believe, typical of most faculty.
    In light of the overwhelming interest in the topic at the session (over 250 people in attendance with standing and floor space barely available), the outstanding dialogue that occurred between panelists and audience, requests from numerous attendees and organizers that we publish our preliminary research, and the follow-up presentation by Professor Christiansen at the 2003 ARLD meeting, here we present our findings, now in collaboration with librarian Lyn Thaxton and with a review of the relevant literatures.

LIBRARIAN-FACULTY RELATIONS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE AND LIBRARY STUDIES LITERATURES
    While librarians have written extensively on librarianship in general and librarian faculty relations in particular, the subject of librarian-faculty relations is almost completely absent in the social sciences.(n1) In this section, we review how both library studies and social science treat the subject of librarian-faculty relations, highlighting major themes and methodological issues.

Librarian-Faculty Relations in Social Science Literature
    The little social science research on librarians and librarianship that exists focuses on four major topics: gender and sexuality in the profession of librarians; uses of library resources for the purpose of teaching sociological research methods and bibliographic instruction; status, prestige, and professionalism of librarians; and the politics of collections.
    The first two topics--gender and sexuality issues, and the use of library resources for teaching sociology--generate the most research in the social sciences. Articles on gender and sexuality focus on librarianship as "women's work" with its attendant issues, for example, pay equity and comparable worth,(n2-n4) the impact of technology on women librarians,(n5) identities and self-image of women librarians,(n6) the historical feminization of librarianship,(n7) and male librarians and sexual identity.(n8-n9) Research that discusses the effective use of the library and expert assistance of librarians, for the purpose of teaching undergraduate students, comes from articles in Teaching Sociology.(n10-n14) There are also several articles on the occupational status and prestige of librarians,(n15-n17) all of which were done in countries outside the United States (Italy, Taiwan, and Great Britain, respectively). Finally, some research examines issues surrounding control over and development of collections.(n18-n20) In total, these articles span several decades, reflecting the relatively sparse attention paid to librarianship among social scientists. Although the specific subject of librarian-faculty relations appears in a subsumed form in a few of these articles, it is totally ignored as a primary subject in social science research.

Librarian-Faculty Relations in the Library Studies Literature
    By contrast, research in library studies literatures has devoted more substantial attention to the subject of librarian-faculty relations, in addition to addressing some of the themes listed above. Library research discusses librarians' treatment of faculty,(n21) librarians' expectations of faculty library users,(n22) faculty expectations of librarians,(n23) positive and collegial librarian-faculty relations,(n24-n27) the impact of faculty culture on bibliographic instruction,(n28) and issues surrounding librarians' attainment of formal faculty status.(n29-n30) Without exception, the most comprehensive review and analysis of librarian-faculty relations is offered by Wade R. Kotter.(n31)
    Kotter's discussion begins by placing librarian-faculty relations in the current economic and political context; he stresses the benefits that librarians will reap from improved relations with faculty. He reviews and critiques the current research on librarian-faculty relations, and emphasizes that the methods used in most of these studies are not sufficient for reaching conclusions that are generalizable to all libraries/librarians. He calls for more systematic analyses as a necessary step to improving librarian-faculty relations. Kotter then proceeds to give a detailed review of current programs and research related to librarian-faculty relations, categorized by specific strategies that may be used to improve librarian faculty relations.(n32)
    Also notable is recent research that emphasizes collaborative ventures between librarians and faculty as a strategy for-and measure of-improving relations between librarians and faculty. Exemplary programs, such as the one at Earlham College where library instruction is integrated into a wide variety of academic courses, are frequently cited. The partnership generally focuses on the librarian's role as experts on electronic sources of information.(n33) Some articles have described collaborative Web site development projects. (in the areas of medieval studies(n34) and history,(n35) for example). Other noteworthy collaborations have occurred in the areas of curriculum development, grant writing, collection development, and research.(n36) Yet, librarians are also aware of the apparent limitations of collaboration between the two groups. Surveys aimed at faculty users do not reflect a high degree of collaboration, despite generally high levels of overall satisfaction with college and university libraries. A survey conducted at Memphis State University, where librarians have faculty status, indicated that faculty primarily view librarians as professionals rather than academics and focus more on librarians' service than their educational role.(n37) Similar studies at other institutions confirm this finding.(n38-n39)
    Another relevant theme in library literatures is the emergence of the liaison model on academic campuses, which was developed to achieve greater outreach to academic departments and higher degrees of collaboration. However, surveys of institutions incorporating the liaison model do not reflect increased collaboration. A case study at Texas A&M revealed that faculty view the major functions of liaisons as updating their departments on library services and ordering books or serials. Liaison librarians are not viewed primarily as research consultants but instead as the first persons to contact when faculty experience library problems.(n40) A survey of the evolving liaison model at Georgia State University revealed that most faculty request library materials through their departmental representatives and that the majority do not request library instruction classes or refer students to drop-in classes. The majority of respondents indicated that they would be "willing" to collaborate with librarians on class assignments and ask librarians for assistance with new databases; nevertheless, willingness does not necessarily translate into action.(n41)
    Clearly, librarian-faculty relations is a topic of deep importance to librarians, and this is reflected in the literature. Much of the recent research on librarian-faculty relations discusses various programs and strategies for improving librarian-faculty relations. Generally, librarians are concerned about relations with faculty; librarians theorize as to why disconnections between the two groups occur and suggest strategies for overcoming this separation. By contrast, social science research has neglected librarian-faculty relations as a subject of study.

PRELIMINARY DATA
    In preparation for the panel at the ALA conference, Christiansen and Stombler conducted preliminary qualitative research on librarian-faculty relations. Specifically, Christiansen and Stombler's observations were based on: surveys of eight faculty, a survey of a librarian, interviews of three faculty, interviews of two librarians, and a focus group of eight faculty.(n42) These observations were made at two schools, a public university and a private college. This preliminary research was intended to help us develop a sense and variation' of the relevant issues surrounding librarian-faculty relations, and thus to be able to offer informed insights on the ALA panel. In the course of exploring the meaning of our observations, we generated findings and hypotheses about librarian-faculty relations that we shared with the participants and audiences at the ALA and ARLD/MLA conferences.

MAJOR FINDING: THE ASYMMETRICAL DISCONNECTION BETWEEN LIBRARIANS AND FACULTY
    The most important finding emerging from our preliminary research is that there is an asymmetrical disconnection that exists between librarians and faculty. Although the two groups are mutually dependent, and are both necessary to the successful functioning of any academic institution (whether the emphasis is teaching or research), the two groups are generally separated. This is surprising considering their potential for interaction, collaboration, and shared interests in quality teaching and research. To an outside observer, the two groups may appear to be "tightly coupled,"(n43) in organizational terms; that is, a change in the work processes of one would have a direct impact on the other (e.g., a change in faculty teaching or research expectations would change interactions with or dependency upon the library and librarians). However, our findings indicate that the two groups are actually "loosely coupled;" that is, they have limited contact whereby changes in the work practices of one group would not necessarily have an impact on the other.
    The disconnection between librarians and faculty is evident in several ways, and for many inside academia, this disconnection is not surprising. But what is surprising is the disparity between the two groups in terms of how each perceives this disconnection. In our observations, we found that the disconnection between librarians and faculty is asymmetricaleach group experiences and defines the disconnection differently. Librarians are aware of faculty and the work that they do, and are continually striving to increase contact with them. Moreover, the mission of libraries is generally to serve patrons at the home institution (and other institutions via interlibrary practices), and thus librarians are keenly aware of their relations not only to faculty but also, first and foremost, to students. By contrast, faculty do not have a solid understanding of librarians' work and are not seeking similar contact (although their work as teachers and researchers may require librarians' assistance and expertise). This is not to say that faculty are completely unaware of librarians' work practices, and we certainly do not mean to imply that faculty disrespect librarians. Faculty believe that the function of the library and librarian within educational institutions is the organization and facilitation of access to resources and collections. The faculty we spoke with expressed a healthy respect for librarians as experts toward that end. However, according to our observations, they do not know about librarians' specific duties and projects.
    Further, and just as important, there is a definite asymmetry between the two groups in terms of their perceptions of the consequences of this disconnection. Librarians perceive the disconnection between librarians and faculty as problematic in terms of how librarians are treated directly by some faculty (e.g., assumptions about librarian lack of expertise in particular fields, protectiveness of class space/time, or condescending interaction) and indirectly (through students who bring assignments to librarians that are out of date with current library practices). In the view of librarians, this disconnection interferes with their ability to meet their work goals, the highest of which is serving students. Faculty also acknowledge this disconnection between the two groups, but they simply do not consider it problematic. In striking contrast to the perspective of librarians, faculty perceive no serious problems in relations between the two groups, nor do they identify any negative consequences arising from this disconnection.(n44)

EXPLAINING THE ASYMMETRICAL DISCONNECTION BETWEEN LIBRARIANS AND FACULTY
    Our observations led us to introduce two frameworks that may explain this asymmetrical disconnection between librarians and faculty and the differential perception of the consequences that arise from that disconnection. The first are organizational dimensions and issues; the second are social status dimensions. Both sets of explanations are related, and our guess is that both are likely contributors to the dynamics and qualities of contemporary librarian-faculty relations.

Organizational Explanations
    According to our preliminary observations, the disconnection between faculty and librarians (and consequent impact on their social relations) may be due partly to several organizational factors. First are the physical and temporal divisions of librarians and faculty. While at most schools, faculty are located in various parts of a campus, librarians are (obviously) primarily located in the library. The time commitments and expectations of both groups differ as well. Faculty have more flexible schedules and have summers "off" when they may be focusing solely on research or other creative activities; librarians typically work a forty-hour week, year round. Faculty work is done in the office or at home, whereas comparatively little time is spent in the library (although faculty could be benefiting--in meeting both their research and teaching goals--from increased involvement of librarians and more time spent in libraries). The physical and temporal separation of librarians and faculty impacts the opportunity for meaningful interaction and the mutual recognition of expertise and collegial respect. Changes in information technology over the last two decades have accelerated this separation, as faculty report that they use the Internet in their offices or at home to accomplish their work responsibilities and goals. At research universities with graduate programs, graduate students--in their roles of teaching assistants and research assistants-are asked to do library searches for faculty, thereby further separating faculty from librarians. This separation may be mediated through contact on college/university-wide committees or librarian-department liaisons, but generally the two groups are physically and temporally separated.
    Related to these job differences are the different organizational subcultures described by both librarians and faculty. Generally, libraries encourage a culture of sharing, cooperation, and collaboration, for the ultimate purpose of assisting students in their educational pursuits. Part of what defines librarianship is 'reaching out' to library users (students, faculty, and others) to better serve them. By contrast, faculty culture is generally more isolated and proprietary. Faculty have been trained through years of schooling and practice as professionals to value solitary work highly and to maintain exclusive control over teaching and research projects; when collaboration occurs, it is usually in the context of research with other faculty. In the eyes of faculty, librarians do not appear to play a central role in faculty teaching or research. In the case of teaching, faculty see their classes as their own domain, untouchable even by other faculty. If a faculty member creates or modifies a course, they are not going td consult with librarians in the process. By contrast, librarians are constantly exposed to new materials in many fields, and if they are aware of a new or modified course, they are well positioned to 'keep an eye out' for new relevant materials. Unfortunately, faculty are simply unaware of this, and even if they were, faculty still do not see librarians as experts in faculty's fields of expertise, and therefore not appropriate for consultation. In the case of research, faculty see librarians as a resource (in some cases, a last resort) for gaining access to materials, not as experts who may play a central role in the preparation and execution of a research project.
    What seems to have emerged between the two groups is a two-sided knowledge literacy gap. On the one hand, faculty do not view librarians as having specific expertise in the faculty's discipline to discern the appropriate materials for a particular course or research project; on the other hand, librarians view faculty as relatively illiterate on matters of information technology, search techniques, and so forth (this is especially obvious when librarians are presented with course assignments by students that refer to search techniques that are out-dated). There is mutual respect between the two groups in terms of expertise, but only in their respective fields, which, in the views of both groups, does not overlap.
    Furthermore, the organizational power that each group commands on most campuses is usually unequal. With the exception of administration, faculty control most college/university-wide committees, including curriculum and other academic policy, governance, personnel, tenure/promotion, development, student affairs, and so forth. Faculty generally have more power than librarians in terms of decision-making bodies. There are many reasons that this is the case, such as the historical development of academic hierarchies, status differences between librarians and faculty, and the ratio of faculty to librarians on any given campus. We find the first two explanations more compelling and discuss those in the next section. But whatever the reason, the consequences of this power differential are clear. Faculty at many educational institutions-even those faculty bodies that are fractured and internally antagonistic-understand that they are a separate group from other groups on campus. Consequently, faculty interests are generally more represented in decision making than librarians (and other groups on campus), although both groups are necessary for the smooth and productive functioning of the organization.
    Finally, the structure of librarian's work is focused on serving a specific (local) faculty and student body. The success of their work is measured on the quality of service to the immediate (home) institution and its patrons. Thus, contact and positive relations with faculty, and especially students, are of deep importance for librarians. By contrast, the success of faculty work is measured (primarily) on the quality and quantity of research (at research institutions) and teaching (at teaching institutions), which involves interactions among faculty (in the home institution and other institutions and among members of the discipline), and between faculty and students (at the home institution). From the faculty perspective, contact and positive relations with colleagues in their own departments, as well as in other departments and schools, and with students, weigh heavier on faculty minds than relations with librarians. This is due, in part, to the ways in which faculty are evaluated in annual reports, for promotions and tenure.

Status-Difference Explanations
    Although librarians and faculty are interdependent and connected in a loosely coupled way, faculty explain the separation between the two groups in terms of the different organizational functions each provides to the institution. Faculty report that the two groups simply do different things, and therefore it is understandable that they have little contact.
    But there is more to this disconnection than just organizational function. The perception among faculty is that librarians' work is service-oriented-their primary duties are the organization and facilitation of access to knowledge and other resources. By contrast, faculty see their own work as focusing on the production and dissemination of knowledge. As many sociologists have discussed in numerous contexts, contemporary society generally views service-oriented work as being of lesser importance than production, primarily due to the implicit super ordinate subordinate relations that appear inherent in service. Ours is not a society that considers service an honored form of labor (especially relative to production), and academic culture reflects these larger social attitudes. Again, the faculty that we spoke with believe that librarians are experts, but not in terms of production. They are expert servers, and to the degree that social prejudice about service operates in academics settings, viewing librarians as a different status group is reinforced. And because faculty are unaware of what librarians actually do for their work, they do not see the nonservice production in which librarians are engaged, that is, research projects and publishing, creating new systems and techniques for searches, the development of collections, the development of courses, and so forth. Faculty ignorance of librarian's work reinforces the status differences between the two groups.
    In the context of faculty ignorance of librarian's work, there are several ways in which the status of librarians is viewed as different by faculty. First, the formal-institutional status of librarians and faculty appears different, librarians labeled as "staff" and faculty as "faculty." This difference has long been a source of division between faculty and other college bodies (i.e., librarians, information technology workers, secretarial/clerical workers, grounds workers, food workers, etc.). Part of what reinforces this division is the attainment of professional degrees. In many (but not all) academic disciplines, the doctorate is the terminal degree, and often the required degree for employment. For librarians who attain professional degrees, the Master's of Library Science or Master's of Information Science are the usual terminal degrees. The degree differential serves to reinforce the status difference between librarians (and other groups on campus) and faculty. One important caveat: Some academic disciplines typically require a master's degree as their terminal degree, for example, Master's of Fine Arts. The fact that status differences between librarians and faculty still persist despite these exceptions to the degree differential suggests that status differences are multifaceted, and that academic degrees are just one contributing factor.
    Related, the "services" and "professions" have always held different social statuses. The work of faculty has traditionally been considered professional, whereas the attainment of professional status among librarians has been a historical process that has emerged over time, and' not without resistance. Librarians have worked hard at getting others to see their work as professional. In our observations, faculty did not share the historical view and indeed do believe that librarians are experts and professionals. Again, faculty express genuine respect for the work of librarians and it appears that librarians have succeeded in defining their work as expert-professionals in the eyes of faculty.
    The consequences of the general status separation between faculty and other groups in the academy, which have been part of academic institutions since their inception, are deep and important, and relate to differences in work-time expectations, pay and benefits, power in college wide policies and issues, and in terms of the social relations between faculty and everyone else on campus. What we are talking about here are superordinate-subordinate relations that are legitimized by assumptions of superiority and inferiority. There is much to be said about this, beyond the scope of this report.
    Finally, related to this is another dimension of social status: the perception that librarianship is a traditionally gendered job, specifically a female-dominated profession. Sociologists have long demonstrated how "women's work" is undervalued in many respects (pay, benefits, respect, etc.) and contributes to antagonistic gender relations on the job. As our review of the social science literature (above) suggests, the gender dimension is a key determinant of social status differences in all librarian-librarian and librarian-user relations. To the degree that librarianship remains viewed as "women's work," and to the degree that this work is viewed as having lesser value than traditionally "men's work," the general status differences between librarians and faculty are reinforced.

CONCLUSION
    In this report, we have presented a review of the existing literature on librarian-faculty relations and offered a sociological analysis of professional relations between librarians and faculty based on preliminary research conducted for the ALA and ARLD/MLA meetings. Our findings confirm the research done by librarians on the topic of librarian-faculty relations. Librarian-faculty relations have long been a significant component of the profession of librarians. For faculty, however, librarian-faculty relations are of little or no concern. The research on librarian-faculty relations reflects this stark difference: Whereas librarians have published articles and dedicate significant sessions at professional conferences to the topic of librarian faculty relations, social scientists (including sociologists) have yet to study librarian-faculty relations. We agree with Kotter that groundbreaking, systematic work on the topic is needed. This report provides some initial tools-the theoretical frameworks of organizational structures and status differences-toward that end.
    Our preliminary research has helped to raise questions to better understand dynamics and power in the librarian-faculty relationship. We expect that the two most important factors to be organizational and status differences. Researching librarian faculty relations is a subject that is ripe for study by sociologists of work, organizations, the professions, and other social scientists. A systematic study of librarian-faculty relations (perhaps based on large-scale surveys, interviews at a representative sample of different types of institutions, or other research designs) will allow these hypotheses to be tested.

Acknowledgments:
    This report is based largely on preliminary research discussed on a panel at the American Library Association (ALA) conference, June 15, 2002, Atlanta, GA, and for a presentation at the Academic and Research Libraries Division (ARLD) of the Minnesota Library Association (MLA) meeting, April 25, 2003, Duluth, MN. We thank Brain Quinn (Social Sciences Librarian, Texas Tech University) and the Education and Behavioral Sciences Section of the ALA for their support and organization of the ALA panel. We thank Jane Ann Nelson (Director of Library Services, Augsburg College) and the ARLD/MLA. We thank the panelists and audiences for their thoughtful comments during and after both the ALA and ARLD/MLA sessions. Finally, we also thank sociologist Nancy Fischer for her editorial assistance.

NOTES AND REFERENCES
    (n1) In a few articles, librarians' interaction with library users is discussed, but is secondary to the main focus of the article, e.g., Michel Dorban, "Libraries, Librarians, and Users: Changes Underway," Recherches Sociologiques 23 (1) (1992): 103-119.
    (n2) Philippa Hall, "The NSW Pay Equity Inquiry: A New Approach for the New Century," Labour and Industry 10 (2) (1999): 33-51.
    (n3) Peter J. Meyer & Patricia L. Maes, "The Reproduction of Occupational Segregation among Young Women," Industrial Relations 22 (1) (1983): 115-124.
    (n4) Linda M. Blum, "Politics and Policy Making: The Comparable Worth Debate," Berkeley Journal of Sociology 28 (1983): 39-67.
    (n5) Monika E. Reuter, "The Influence of Technology on Women Librarians and Library Assistants' Work Experience" (Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, 1991).
    (n6) Pamela J. B. Cravey, "The Occupational Role Identity and Occupational Role Image of Female Librarians in Four Traditional Subspecialties of Librarianship," Dissertation (Georgia State University, 1990).
    (n7) Dee Garrison, "The Tender Technicians: The Feminization of Public Librarianship, 1876-1905," Journal of Social History 6 (2) (1973): 131-159.
    (n8) James V. Carmichael, Jr., "The Male Librarian and the Feminine Image: A Survey of Stereotype, Status, and Gender Perceptions," Library & Information Science Research 14 (4) (1992): 411-446.
    (n9) Christine L. Williams, Still a Man's World: Men Who Do "Women's Work" (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).
    (n10) Paula Hammett, "Teaching Tools for Evaluating World Wide Web Resources," Teaching Sociology 27 (1) (1999): 31-37.
    (n11) Deborah A. Abowitz, "Developing Awareness and Use of Library Resources in Undergraduate Sociology: A Sample Assignment," Teaching Sociology 22 (1) (1994): 58-64.
    (n12) Steven P. Thomas, "Doing Sociology," Teaching Sociology 20 (3) (1992): 258-259.
    (n13) David B. Booth, "Studying Research Methods by Examining Changing Research Strategies," Teaching Sociology 11 (2) (1984): 205-212.
    (n14) Thomas E. Drabek, Ward Shaw, & Patricia B. Culkin, "The Query Analysis System: A New Tool for Increasing the Effectiveness of Library Utilization by Sociology Students," Teaching Sociology 6 (1) (1978): 47-68.
    (n15) Everardo Minardi, "From Occupation to Professional Group: Library Service Workers Between Information Technology and New Users," Sociologia del Lavoro 70-71 (1998): 204-224.
    (n16) Hang-Ching Chong, "How to Upgrade Librarians' Occupational Prestige and Social Status in Taiwan," Journal of Information Communication and Library Science 3 (1) (1996): 55-63.
    (n17) Annete Davies & Ian Kirkpatrick, "Face to Face with the 'Sovereign Consumer': Service Quality and the Changing Role of Professional Academic Librarians," The Sociological Review 43 (4) (1995): 782-807.
    (n18) Richard Harvey Brown & Beth Davis-Brown, "The Making of Memory: The Politics of Archives, Libraries and Museums in the Construction of National Consciousness," History of the Human Sciences 11 (4) (1998): 17-32.
    (n19) B. Lee Cooper, "From the Outside Looking In: A Popular Culture Researcher Speaks to Librarians," Popular Culture in Libraries 1 (1) (1993): 37-46.
    (n20) Mark Sandler & Cathryn H. Barling, "Departmental Evaluation and Maintenance of the Library Sociology Collection," Teaching Sociology 11 (3) (1984): 259-280.
    (n21) Joseph A. Jackson, "Librarians: Honor Thy Faculty," The Southeastern Librarian 39 (1989): 16-17.
    (n22) Christine M. Larson, "'What I Want in a Faculty Member': A Reference Librarian's Perspective," Reference and User Services Quarterly 37 (3) (1998): 259-261.
    (n23) Susan Griswold Blandy, "What Do Faculty Want?" Reference Librarian 38 (1992): 183-190.
    (n24) M. J. Scherdin, "How Well Do We Fit? Librarians and Faculty in the Academic Setting," Portal 2 (2) (2002): 237-253.
    (n25) Steve McKinzie, "Librarians and Faculty in Tandem: Taking Our Cue from the Evening News," Reference and User Services Quarterly 37 (1) (1997): 19-21.
    (n26) Jean Armour Major, "Mature Librarians and the University Faculty: Factors Contributing to Librarians' Acceptance as Colleagues," College & Research Libraries 54 (1993): 463-469.
    (n27) William F. Birdsall, "Why Don't More Faculty Love Librarians?" Journal of Academic Librarianship 17 (1992): 375.
    (n28) Larry Hardesty, "Faculty Culture and Bibliographic Instruction: An Exploratory Analysis," Library Trends 44 (1995): 339-367.
    (n29) S. Cary, "Faculty Rank, Status, and Tenure for Librarians," College and Research Libraries News 62 (5) (2001): 510-11, 520.
    (n30) Rachel Applegate, "Deconstructing Faculty Status: Research and Assumptions," Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (3) (1993): 158-164.
    (n31) Wade R. Kotter, "Bridging the Great Divide: Improving Relations Between Librarians and Classroom Faculty," Journal of Academic Librarianship 25 (1999): 294-303.
    (n32) The categories of programs that Kotter reviews are: honoring the faculty; new/improved services for classroom faculty (simplifying searches and access; faculty outreach librarians); involving faculty in library programs (collection selection, evaluation, preservation, etc.); involving librarians in classroom faculty activities (instructional design, classroom instruction, etc.); increasing faculty awareness of library services; and fostering/supporting faculty research.
    (n33) Evan Farber, "College Libraries and the Teaching/Learning Process: A 25-Year Reflection," Journal of Academic Librarianship 25 (1999): 171-177.
    (n34) Scott Walter, "Engelond: A Model for Faculty-Librarian Collaboration in the Information Age," Information Technology and Libraries 19 (2000): 34-35.
    (n35) Tammy S. Sugarman & Constance Demetracopoulos, "Creating a Web Research Guide: Collaboration Between Liaisons, Faculty, and Students," Reference Services Review 29 (2001): 150- 156.
    (n36) Bee Gallegos & Thomas Wright, "Collaborations in the Field: Examples from a Survey," in The Collaborative Imperative: Librarians and Faculty Working Together in the Information Universe (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000), pp. 97-113.
    (n37) Robert T. Ivey, "Teaching Faculty Perceptions of Academic Librarians at Memphis State University," College & Research Libraries 55 (1994): 69-82.
    (n38) Devin Feldman, "Both Sides of the Looking Glass: Librarian and Teaching Faculty Perceptions of Librarianship at Six Community Colleges," College & Research Libraries 61 (2000): 491-498.
    (n39) Larry R. Oberg, "Faculty Perceptions of Librarians at Albion College: Status, Role, Contribution, and Contacts," College & Research Libraries 50 (1989): 215-230.
    (n40) Zheng Ye (Lan) Yang, "University Faculty's Perception of a Library Liaison Program: A Case Study," Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (2000): 124-128.
    (n41) La Loria Konata & Lyn Thaxton, "Transition to a Liaison Model: Teaching Faculty and Librarian Perceptions," Urban Library Journal 11 (2001): 28-56.
    (n42) Because these were informal observations and discussions, we made no attempt to select a representative sample of faculty and librarians and are not claiming that our observations are generalizable to all faculty and librarians. There was no systematic selection and assessment of observations, and no human subjects' approvals were sought or necessary. [Consequently, we are not providing actual quotes from surveys or interviews in this report.] In his excellent piece "Bridging the Great Divide," Wade Kotter laments the lack of systematic research on librarian-faculty relations. Our preliminary research for this report is, reflective of typical research in the field and is illustrative of Kotter's point. We echo Kotter's call for more systematic and generalizable research on librarian-faculty relations.
    (n43) Charles Perrow, Normal Accidents (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999). The concept of "coupling" as applied to organizational settings comes from leading organizational sociologist Charles Perrow. He uses the concept of coupling to describe the relationship between different functions within an organizational setting.
    (n44) In fact, the title of Christiansen and Stombler's talk at the ALA panel, "Don't Know, Don't Care: Understanding and Changing Faculty Perspectives and Behaviors in the Faculty/Librarian Relationship," reflects this finding.
ADDED MATERIAL
    Lyn Thaxton, William R. Pullen Library, Georgia State University, Altanta, GA, USA.