Abstract
This study sought to measure occupational stress levels of tenure eligible academic librarians quantitatively and explores the connections between occupational stress and institutional supports. Researchers administered the Job Stress Survey™ to 109 academic librarians in tenure eligible positions. These data were then analyzed and correlated with participants’ responses in an earlier study which measured tenure confidence and access to institutional supports. Findings showed that lack of support contributes to stress more than the pressures of the job and supports that increase librarians’ confidence do not always decrease stress.
Introduction
Occupational stress is an area of concern for both organizations and employees. Characterized as “a physiological and psychological response to events or conditions in the workplace,” occupational stress is influenced by a variety of occupational factors and is “detrimental to health and well-being” (VandenBos, 2015: 727). The American Psychological Association Center for Organizational Excellence (2018) notes that more than one-third of Americans report having chronic work stress. Occupational stressors have been well studied, and the impacts on both organizations and employees are well known. High levels of occupational stress negatively impact both the employee and organization and have been shown to be related to decreases in productivity, morale, dedication, and employee mental health. Although occupational stress and its associated consequences have been well studied in various fields, the occupational stress levels of academic librarians have been far less discussed.
What research does exist has looked at occupational stress through the lens of common stressors such as ambiguity, overload, and conflict as a stressor area (Shupe et al., 2015; Shupe and Pung, 2011). In addition, literature has examined burnout among librarians, a condition which can be caused by chronic occupational stress. In particular, Nardine (2019), McCormack (2014), and Shupe et al. (2015) examined role-related stress among academic librarians and burnout. While these studies have done well to establish stressors of academic librarianship such as role ambiguity, work overload, and role conflict, research has largely overlooked the impact of employer supports or interventions on occupational stress. In addition, existing research has failed to investigate the unique experiences of academic librarians in tenure eligible positions, who may experience different stressor types, frequency, or severity than their tenured colleagues.
The intersection of institutional supports, professional confidence, and tenure-track librarians’ occupational stress levels has remained an unexplored area of research. The purpose of the study described here is to fill this void by first measuring the average tenure-track academic librarian’s occupational stress level and second assessing how, if at all, occupational stress is related to institutional supports or librarians’ professional confidence. Carol Parker (2011) notes that “a full understanding of the work involved on the part of the tenure candidates, adequate support from directors and supervisors, and equitable policies and procedures applied consistently and fairly can make the difference between tenure candidates’ success and failure” (p. 217). We hypothesize that these factors, along with institutional supports such as funding, research release time, and structured mentoring programs also impact tenure candidates’ occupational stress.
The research questions guiding this research are as follows:
What level of occupational stress do tenure-track librarians experience on average?
What, if any, demographic factors (e.g. gender, years of library experience) are related to the occupational stress levels of tenure-track librarians?
Based on institutional factors (e.g. research release time, mentoring program), what are the average occupational stress levels of tenure-track librarians?
Understanding the level of stress that tenure-track librarians are under and the way supports interact with stress levels will help identify supports that are needed and prevent premature turnover. Both librarians and administrators will benefit from this understanding as they seek to preserve a process that provides legitimacy to the field.
Literature review
Existing literature extensively explores the effects of occupational stressors on the mental health condition of academic librarians. Myers Spencer (2013) clearly outlines challenges facing academic librarians, noting that librarians are often faced with “demanding bosses and patrons, heavy workloads, long workdays, longer commutes, understaffing, budget cutbacks, [and] doing more with less.” In the midst of the increasing demand for information literacy and competing commercial information providers, librarians are facing a growing pressure to satisfy patrons (Johnson and Lindsay, 2006). Freedman (2014) found that “the expansion of librarians’ roles, particularly in the new area of digital scholarship and collections, has resulted in stress in the workplace.” According to Davis Kendrick (2017), administrative or managerial incompetence, bullying, personality conflicts, verbal abuse, administration changes, emotional abuse, and work overload contribute to low morale within academic librarians. These stressors have been shown to have psychological, physical, and work-related consequences (Shupe et al., 2015). Oyewole and Popoola (2013) found that academic librarians who experience severe job stress are “at risk for burnout, a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and loss of sense of personal accomplishment which affects their job performance” (p. 20). Wood et al. (2020) reported on librarian burnout using the Copenhagen Burnout inventory and their data “indicates that almost 50% of academic librarians are experiencing work-related burnout.”
With such significant consequences of work-related stressors, it is important for librarians to become aware of how they are impacted by their work environment. According to Khan et al. (2016), self-assessment is one of the strongest predictors of job satisfaction among academic librarians. Librarians who seek to understand how they are impacted by their work are also more likely to be satisfied by it. This self-assessment is an important skill to develop in the profession because these stressors “have the potential to negatively impact librarians at all stages of their career” (Farrell et al., 2017). To mitigate the consequences of occupational stressors, an awareness of them needs to be developed. Existing research does investigate the stressors of academic librarians to increase awareness of how they are impacted by their work. However, insight into how these stressors are compounded during transitional phases, such as the tenure process for academic librarians, is currently lacking.
Requirements for tenure vary according to the institution, but the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) standards (ACRL Committee on the Status of Academic Librarians, 2011) for faculty status include professional responsibilities, academic forms of governance, equal university representation, comparable compensation, tenure coverage, promotion by rank within peer reviewed system, leave and research funding eligibility, and academic freedom protections. Tenure-track librarians report that finding time for scholarship is one of the most challenging aspects of the process. Hughes (2018) notes that with all the responsibilities placed on them, it is difficult to find time to cultivate research interests, especially when they are expected to do so at a rate comparable to other campus faculty.
Evaluative criteria and institutional support mechanisms, particularly financial resources, vary wildly from institution to institution. Vilz and Poremski (2015) noted that ambiguity and inconsistency in the process makes it difficult for peers from other institutions to provide concrete advice on how to successfully meet tenure expectations. In addition, tenure eligible librarians must often take on a heavy workload to achieve tenure, and many feel unprepared to do so. Several authors (Ackerman et al., 2018; Kennedy and Brancolini, 2018; Vilz and Poremski, 2015) have investigated academic librarians’ perceived preparation and confidence to tackle tenure expectations, especially the research component, as well as perceptions, availability, and effectiveness of support systems for early career academic librarians. Both Ackerman et al. (2018) and Vilz and Poremski (2015) found that many academic librarians feel they are not adequately prepared for the tenure and promotion process. The ambiguity of the tenure process along with balancing daily job responsibilities with tenure expectations correlate to known occupational stressors, suggesting that this population may be particularly at risk of high occupational stress levels.
Exposure to stress over long periods of time has been shown to have deleterious health consequences as it changes the shape and activity of the brain (Lupien et al., 2009). In addition, Houkes et al. (2003) noted that the emotional exhaustion brought on by occupational stress has been shown to increase turnover intention of employees. Heady et al. (2020) most recently found burnout, work overload, role ambiguity, and job stress to be leading causes in job-duty dissatisfaction and turnover in academic librarians. It is important to understand the toll of tenure track from a mental health perspective to protect librarians in the process and maintain a healthy approach to tenure.
Academic institutions set their tenure-track librarians up for success by understanding how their librarians are impacted by the tenure process. In addition, tenure-track librarians must develop emotional intelligence amid this process “to manage numerous professional challenges and job-related stresses optimistically” (Khan et al., 2016). Tenure-track librarians must be aware of how they are impacted by the process to successfully navigate through it.
Methods
Phase 1: Institutional supports and professional confidence survey
A 33-question Qualtrics survey seeking information on available institutional supports and tenure-track librarian’s perceived confidence regarding tenure attainment was developed by the authors and disseminated to 34 professional library email listservs for academic and college librarians to recruit as many participants as possible. 1 The invitation included an explanation of the survey, statement of goal for the project, explanation of participant rights, and a hyperlink to the survey. The Institutional Supports and Professional Confidence Survey was active between 2 July 2018 and 16 July 2018 with a reminder being sent on 11 July 2018. Questions consisted of a mix of multiple choice, yes/no, constant sum, and text entry answer options. The full survey can be seen in Supplemental Appendix A.
Once agreeing to the survey’s informed consent participants encountered a screening question which required them to indicate whether they were currently employed in a tenure eligible position at an US based institution of higher education. Early participants indicated confusion about whether the survey was seeking input from already tenured librarians or those only on the tenure-track. The researchers added clarifying language within the informed consent statement to emphasize only participants on the tenure-track (not yet tenured) were being asked to participate. All respondents who answered no to this screening question were directed to the end of the study’s thank you message.
The Institutional Supports and Professional Confidence Survey gathered information on age, education background, time on tenure-track, total library work experience, availability and levels of institutional supports, perceptions of mentorship, tenure requirements, actual versus perceived percentage of time spent on work duties required for tenure, and perceived confidence level of attaining tenure. Except for the initial screening question, all questions were optional. Gathered responses were voluntary and anonymous with data being analyzed in aggregate form to protect the confidentiality of participants.
The purpose of the Institutional Supports and Professional Confidence Survey was to determine how many of the responding tenure-track librarians were receiving institutional supports, the types of supports received, and the impact they have on librarians’ professional confidence to perform their work duties and achieve tenure. An additional aim was to determine how well academic librarians understand the current tenure process at their local institutions.
Phase 2: Job Stress Survey™ (JSS)
Phase 2 of the study required personalized links for survey dissemination in order to map participants’ occupational stress results to their responses regarding institutional supports from phase 1. Upon completing the Institutional Supports and Professional Confidence Survey, participants were presented with the option to voluntarily participate in phase 2 of the study by submitting their email address for follow-up contact. There identifying data were voluntarily collected from participants who elected to participate in follow-up research in phase 2. The University of Arkansas’ Institutional Review Board approved the study’s survey mechanisms and methods of protecting all participants’ confidentiality for both phases.
In total, 177 participants from the first phase of the research study indicated willingness to participate in the second phase. These participants were emailed with a unique link to a Qualtrics survey containing a consent agreement, one open-ended demographic question regarding participant gender, and the full Job Stress Survey™ (Spielberger and Vagg, 1999). All questions were optional. Two reminder emails were sent to participants who had not started or completed the survey after 10 days and then 3 weeks. Of those invited to participate, 109 submitted the survey by the close date. Three incomplete responses were not included in the final analysis, giving a final sample size of 106.
Gender demographics were collected during this phase of the study in order to compare Job Stress Survey™ scores to normative charts. These data were collected by asking “What gender do you most identify with?” and providing respondents with an open text box. Responses included male/female, man/woman, female—assigned female at birth (AFAB), and she/her/hers. All respondents answered this question, and all responses were coded as either male or female. There were no responses that indicated a gender identity outside of male and female in our sample. Thirteen respondents identified as male, while 93 respondents identified as female.
The Job Stress Survey™ is a 60-question survey designed to assess the occupational stress of men and women in a variety of workplaces (Spielberger and Vagg, 1999). The survey contains 30 stressor events and assesses the severity and frequency of each event to provide an overall stress score. Overall stress scores range from 0 to 81, where 0 is the lowest level of job stress and 81 is the highest level of job stress, and indicate the perceived amount of job stress the recipient typically experiences in their job. There are three stress scales, including job stress index, job stress severity, and job stress frequency. The survey also has six subscales of job pressure index, job pressure severity, job pressure frequency, lack of organizational support index, lack of organizational support severity, and lack of organizational frequency. Subscales are composed of 10 survey items.
The scoring manual provides normative data for managerial/professional, clerical/skilled-maintenance, and senior military personnel employees as well as breaking those categories down by men and women. The managerial/professional data were normed on corporate business and university samples so would be considered highly applicable to the population of focus. The JSS is shown to have high reliability with alpha scores in the high .70s to low .80s and a test–retest reliability from .48 to .75 (Spielberger and Vagg, 2003). It is also shown to have high validity as compared to similar tests of locus of control samples (Spielberger and Vagg, 2003: 33). Jannoo et al. (2015) showed that the sub-factors of pressure, severity, and overall index have high internal consistency.
The JSS was designed to help employers identify sources of stress for their employees, so they can be alleviated to create less stressful working conditions (Spielberger and Vagg, 1999). Vagg and Spielberger (1998) note that “the JSS scale, subscale, and item scores can be used at an organizational level to identify major sources of stress for groups of works, or with individual employees to determine which aspects of their work is most stressful.” With the identification of major stressors, they can be changed to “reduce or avoid adverse health-related consequences” (Vagg and Spielberger, 1999).
Results
Research question 1: What level of occupational stress do tenure-track librarians experience on average?
The sample had a collective job stress index score (JS-X) of 23.40, which means tenure-track librarians’ scores are in the 65th percentile for job stress of managerial and professional positions. The job pressure subscale (JP-X) of 25.05 is in the 60th percentile while the lack of support subscale (LS-X) of 26.40 is in the 75th percentile. In every stress scale, tenure-track librarians rated the severity of stressful events as higher than the frequency of those events.
Research question 2: What, if any, demographic factors are related to the occupational stress levels of tenure-track librarians?
Respondents that identified as female accounted for 87.7% of the total sample, while the remainder (12.3%) identified as male. According to the JSS female normative scores, tenure-track librarians who identify as female score in the 65th percentile (JS-X = 23.39). Their male counterparts scored in the 75th percentile (JS-X = 24.37) as compared to other managerial and professional men.
The data collected was compared to participants’ responses in an earlier study which collected information on demographics and institutional supports. Correlation between this data shows an increasing trend in scores as tenure-track librarians continue in their process. There was a statistically significant correlation (Pearson’s r = .209 at the .05 level) between job stress index and years on tenure track. Average JSS scores also tended to increase in relation to years of experience working in libraries, though not significantly so. The average JS-X score for librarians with 0–5 years of experience was in the 60th percentile (JS-X = 21.65), librarians with 6–9 years of experience had an average score in the 65th percentile (JS-X = 23.76), and librarians with 10 or more years of experience had an average score in the 75th percentile (JS-X = 25.34). JS-X scores and percentiles compared to demographic data can be seen in Chart 1.
JS-X scores compared to demographic characteristics.
Research question 3: Based on institutional factors, what are the average occupational stress levels of tenure-track librarians?
Averages scores were calculated for respondents who reported access to a variety of institutional supports. Tenure-track librarians who reported receiving funding from their institution scored higher on average on the JSS than those receiving no funding (JS-X = 24.81 for funding and JS-X = 19.98 without funding). Minimal differences were seen when comparing average job stress scores for those who received mentoring (JS-X = 23.31 with mentoring and JS-X = 23.98 without mentoring) and allocated research time (JS-X = 23.85 for those with research time and JS-X = 23.10 for those without research time). These results can be seen in Chart 2.
JS-X scores compared to institutional supports.
Tenure-track librarians who reported that they clearly understood their institution’s expectations for tenure scored, on average, at the 55th percentile (JS-X = 20.40) while those who lacked clarity scored, on average, at the 75th percentile (JS-X = 26.84). Tenure-track librarians who reported moderate to high confidence in their ability to receive tenure had an average score in the 65th percentile (JS-X = 22.42). Those lacking confidence in their ability to receive tenure represented quite a small sample size and scored, on average, in the 90th percentile (JS-X = 32.80).
The stressor events of working overtime and having insufficient personal time were considerably higher than the normative average. The stressor events of inadequate salary and lack of opportunity for advancement were considerably lower than the normative average.
Discussion
Academic librarians in tenure-track positions experience typical workplace stressors in addition to the unique pressures of rigorous scholarship and service expectations. If academic libraries are to continue offering faculty status and tenure to librarians, how can the stress of this process best be minimized? What supports can institutions offer to decrease measures of occupational stress?
Data from this study suggest that while tenure-track librarians have relatively high job stress severity the frequency of job stressors is comparatively low. That is, events that respondents rated as being highly stressful occur too infrequently to be significant in these data. High occupational stress levels for tenure-track librarians in this study stem primarily from lack of support rather than the stress of the job. This finding is encouraging as it promotes achievable change. It is unlikely workplace stressors can be meaningfully reduced, but institutions are able to implement greater supports suggested by research, such as consistent mentorship programs and research workshops.
Perhaps, the most notable correlation with high stress scores was lack of clarity and understanding regarding tenure requirements. Librarians who reported a lack of understanding regarding tenure expectations of them showed stress scores well above the sample average. This finding suggests that one way to minimize occupational stress for tenure-track librarians is to increase their familiarity and comfort with tenure guidelines and protocols. Although Leysen and Black (1998) acknowledge that “if librarians are to remain successful, they will require that criteria be clear (that expectations be communicated in an understandable manner to both librarians and university administration, the standards make sense, and the measurement be fair)” (pp. 518–519), results from this study show that clarity of requirements also has a meaningful impact on health and mental well-being.
Interestingly, data from this study shows that librarians whose research was supported with funding or additional time for research reported higher stress. It is possible that libraries offering funding or dedicated research time have higher expectations for tenure-track librarians. Tenure expectations are not consistent, even among institutions comparable in size and Carnegie Classification. Goodsett and Walsh (2015) note that varying levels of service, presentations, and publications may be expected of the tenure-track librarian, and some institutions also have criteria related to excellence in teaching or require librarians to earn additional degrees. As this study did not seek to correlate occupational stress measures to specific tenure expectations this result may suggest that tenure expectations and thus stressors are greatest at institutions with greater support resources.
Stress scores also tended to increase (although not significantly so) as librarians approached their final year of tenure and as they gained more years of library experience. This finding may be related to librarians’ growing perception of the importance of tenure, which could cause further stress and anxiety. In their investigation of academic librarians’ perceptions of tenure, Silva et al. (2017) showed that tenured librarians view tenure as being more valuable than those in the process or those without the option of tenure, the findings suggest that librarians’ perceptions of the value of tenure may differ depending on where they are in the process.
Surprisingly, male tenure-track librarians reported higher stress levels than their female counterparts. This finding seems contrary to previous research (Tunguz, 2016) that shows that emotional labor decreases with tenure-track males but increases with tenure-track females. Given that the sample size of men was much smaller than the sample size of women, it is hard to draw conclusions from these data. In addition, due to the nature of this survey, it is unclear what may be influencing higher stress among male librarians. Further research would do well to examine gender differences related to occupational stress in librarians more closely.
Limitations
This study is based on responses from a voluntary survey distributed on academic library listservs. The Institutional Supports and Professional Confidence Survey was not pre-tested. Pre-testing the survey may have improved the quality of questions asked or minimized respondents’ confusion. The JSS was administered to participants who self-selected to be contacted for additional research. As such, the results of this study do not represent a true random sample of the population. The small sample size, especially when doing gendered comparisons, limits the generalizability of the results data. Since this study looked to measure occupational stress, respondents’ own negativity bias when interpreting scenarios must be considered as a possible influencing factor when completing the survey (Bianchi et al., 2018). This study also did not address differences that may be present due to institution size or type.
Conclusion and implications
Occupational stress has known negative consequences for both employees and employers. This research sought to investigate stressors experiences by tenure eligible librarians, quantify occupational stress using the Job Stress Survey™, and correlate stress scores with institutional supports and professional confidence. Responses to the Job Stress Survey™ showed that tenure eligible librarians experience high levels of stressor events related to work-life balance and workload. Quantitative measurement of the tenure eligible academic librarians using the Job Stress Survey™ showed that this population experiences an above average rate of job stress severity but experiences stressful events at a relatively low rate.
Results from this study also show that high occupational stress levels for tenure-track librarians tend to stem from lack of support rather than the job itself. High scores in the Lack of Organization Support subscale point to stress stemming from institutional policies and procedures. Male respondents, unexpectedly, were found to have higher job stress levels than female respondents. This finding is contrary to existing research and cannot be explained by these researchers. Further research into the role of gender in occupational stress during and after the tenure process may be warranted.
Overall, the data from this study support previous research that ambiguity surrounding expectations and roles leads to higher stress levels. Respondents who reported lack of clarity regarding tenure expectations at their institution or reported lack of confidence in achieving tenure showed significantly higher levels of occupational stress. Institutions could help mitigate this effect by reducing ambiguity in the tenure and promotion process and investigating best practices for increasing professional confidence among tenure-track professionals. This research was unable to clearly identify institutional supports correlating to lower stress, suggesting that overall culture and policy may play a larger role in occupational stress than availability of specific supports.
The research presented here adds to the growing body of research around occupational stress in academic libraries. It is no secret that the tenure process is stressful; this research confirms that such is quantifiable. These results can also be used by managers and administrators when developing supports for tenure-track librarians or when considering the importance of addressing stress related concerns and consequences. Clearly conveyed tenure expectations are of the utmost importance, as is the building up of librarians’ professional confidence in areas such as research and service. Perhaps with time, conversation, and policy change, we can begin to reduce the occupational stress tenure-track librarians experience and help preserve a process that comes with as many benefits as it does challenges.
Supplemental Material
Supplementary_material – Supplemental material for Occupational stress measures of tenure-track librarians
Supplemental material, Supplementary_material for Occupational stress measures of tenure-track librarians by Laura Cameron, Stephanie Pierce and Julia Conroy in Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
Author biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
