An Analysis of Hybrid/Remote Work Eligibility in Academic Librarian Job Advertisements

Ruth Sara Connell and Meris Mandernach Longmeier*

This paper seeks to capture changing policies and approaches to hybrid and remote work in academic libraries following the COVID-19 pandemic. For this study, job advertisements were gathered and those hiring managers surveyed. Results show that hybrid/remote positions have competitive salaries; that many types of academic library positions have hybrid eligibility; and that campus and library policies regarding hybrid/remote work and their inclusion in job postings continue to evolve. Despite the potential recruitment benefits of these flexible work arrangements, many who offer them are not including this information in their job advertisements; therefore, job candidates should ask or negotiate for this benefit.

Introduction

With the changes to library services and work practices during and following the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to understand and capture recruitment trends for hybrid and remote work in libraries. Several recent publications note a trend toward more flexibility about when and where library work is performed. While some institutions had flexible work arrangement policies prior to the pandemic, they were not regularly used, and instead applied on a case-by-case basis (Hosoi et al., 2021). The global COVID-19 pandemic forced individuals to work differently, and many found they preferred the flexibility. Additionally, individuals showcased equal or greater productivity (Green, 2022) when working remotely or in a hybrid fashion, especially after caregiving facilities re-opened. Yet, in academic library job postings there is not a standard approach for indicating hybrid/remote eligibility or flexible work arrangements.

Examining job advertisements gives researchers a glimpse into hiring trends in the profession as well as wish lists for individual library organizations and can showcase changes to sub-disciplines over time in the library and information science fields. While they may not capture the exact working environment in libraries, job advertisements indicate a willingness to consider different working styles during the recruitment process and are a leading indicator for changes emerging in the field.

The authors (one at a large Doctoral Very High Research Activity institution, the other at a small Doctoral/Professional university) noted different approaches at their own institutions for hybrid and remote work as well as ongoing changes to flexible work arrangements following the COVID-19 pandemic. These observations motivated them to examine job advertisements and hiring practices in academic libraries in a post-pandemic environment to determine if the differences were mirrored in other academic libraries. Therefore, for this research study, the authors gathered U.S. academic library job postings for five months in 2023 and contacted hiring managers to determine whether there were any considerations around hybrid and remote options for the recruited position. Through this study, the researchers sought to answer the following research questions:

1. Is there any relationship in job postings between salaries and hybrid/remote eligibility?
2. Is there a difference in hybrid/remote and on-site arrangements by job function/responsibility?
3. Are there differences in hybrid/remote offerings by academic library characteristics/ classifications?
4. How prevalent are hybrid/remote options in positions where they are not mentioned in the job ads?
5. Does the potential impact on recruitment influence decisions regarding whether to include work arrangement information in academic librarian job descriptions?

Literature Review

Two themes that informed the current study from the literature were: 1. hybrid/remote work trends that emerged after the pandemic, and 2. research practices around job advertisements within library and information science.

Remote and Hybrid Work Options for Libraries During and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic

Library service delivery and operations changed significantly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (Hall & Duggins, 2022; Hinchliffe & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020). To continue to provide library services in the pandemic and post-pandemic environment, corresponding changes were made in remote/hybrid work arrangements. In the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Academic Library Trends and Statistics 2022 survey, a set of questions were devoted to library service and workplace trends post-COVID-19. The results showed that about half of academic libraries were offering hybrid (42.4%) or remote (7.8%) options to library employees (ACRL Benchmark Question 4). ACRL also asked libraries whether hybrid/remote options would be included in library job postings, when positions were eligible. Responses indicated that 40.6% would include this information in job postings, 35.1% were unsure, and 24.4% would not (Question 7).

Early pandemic studies of changes to library services noted website differences and surveyed libraries about changes to work locations (Heady et al., 2021). For the fall 2021 semester, hybrid schedules were the most common approach; Heady et al. noted that remote work options “were almost equally available to professional staff (33%) as paraprofessional staff (31.2%)” (p. 742). The same study noted that much of the success of maintaining services during the pandemic “relied largely on existing technological infrastructure … and the happenstance that many library workers possessed home internet connections and the computer hardware necessary to conduct library work” (p. 752). Recommendations from these findings included establishing at least 20% remote work agreements and encouraging library administration to participate in remote work to understand how it affected the library workforce.

After one year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey of public services librarians was conducted to capture work locations of employees (Todorinova, 2021). At the time of this survey, many were still working hybrid or fully remote. Todorinova reported that many librarians noted both advantages and drawbacks to remote work. In some cases, individuals were as productive with work output and research, although they were also more stressed. Others noted that caregiving responsibilities made it hard to maintain a positive work/life balance. Many commented on missed chance encounters with colleagues and constituents alike, though new online communication pathways have helped.

Around the same time, technical services librarians were also surveyed about the changes to work and work location post-pandemic (Green, 2022). Green found that of the 402 respondents, fewer than 5% expected to work in fully remote positions, but nearly half of both staff and faculty expected to have the option of hybrid work in the next three to four years. These survey results point to the changing nature of work for this segment of library workers, which will ultimately allow for greater flexibility of work locations. Green found that less than 7% of those surveyed said they would not work remotely at all because they had responsibilities that required on-site work. However, while the work could be done remotely, the study noted that it did not account for whether workers would prefer remote or hybrid work. Green pointed out that some of the factors causing challenges to working from home, such as caregiving, may subside, resulting in more academic library workers being interested in remote or hybrid work. Additionally, Green highlighted that “some employees may not have the option of working remotely—because of local policies, reporting structures, or political options—even when it is technologically feasible” (p. 9). This suggests a need to balance individual preferences with organizational approaches that best serve library users.

In addition to understanding approaches from the library workers themselves, a study in fall 2020 highlighted how administrators’ approaches influenced changes to library work and worker location (Hosoi et al., 2021). This study highlighted that flexible work arrangements (FWAs) before the COVID-19 pandemic were often couched as pilots or experiments; during the pandemic many institutions standardized their policies and libraries adopted their use more regularly. While 52% of those interviewed had flexible work arrangement institutional policies prior to COVID-19, they were used as exceptions rather than as standard practice. Hosoi et al. found that nearly one third of the directors noticed an increase of productivity from remote workers. The overwhelming majority (77%) of those interviewed thought that flexible work would increase in the future and pointed to the rationale that it would help with recruitment, retention, and with location/commute issues.

A recent study of work modality practices and preferences of academic library workers found that over three-quarters of nearly 1,000 respondents had the option for remote/hybrid work on a regular basis (Green, 2023). While most (9%) were not working remotely every day, 50% worked remotely one or two days per week and during certain times of the year. Some preferences expressed for increased acceptance of remote work included: flexible schedules for caregiving, better work-life balance, and avoiding commutes. The study also noted various rationales for on-site work, such as attendance at events, doing site-specific work, connecting with colleagues in person, and participating in workplace social events. Recommendations were provided to better support all workers included offering multiple options for attending meetings, training for supervisors managing the work of multi-modal employees, and flexible evaluation metrics to ensure productive and accountable workers.

As libraries continue to grapple with remote work, particularly in those instances where institutions are not setting campus-wide policies, clarity and training for managers will be essential. A recent (2022) book on practical tips for remote library workers included several questions for facilitating discussion with hybrid or remote employees, such as: “are there aspects of any role that cannot or should not be done remotely?” “What tools, resources, and strategies will library employees need to work effectively?” and “How will remote work affect the culture and collaboration among the library as a whole and the department the remote employee is in?” (Virello, p. 2). Similar to Green, Virello noted that remote work should not take a one-size-fits-all approach and instead should be based both on the specific job requirements and the individual that inhabits the position.

Job Advertisements Within LIS

Research on job advertisements in library and information sciences has been used to monitor current or historic recruitment trends (Triumph & Beile, 2015; Wise et al., 2011; Xia & Wang, 2014; Yadav, 2022); to track changes to job specifications for particular sub-disciplines within the field (Croneis & Henderson, 2002; Eclevia et al., 2019; Han & Hswe, 2010; Reed & Butkovich, 2017; Xia & Wang, 2014); or to capture emerging areas within librarianship (Kim et al., 2013; Plassche, 2022; Todorinova, 2018). While job postings represent current needs within a particular organization, they also highlight the language used to describe the changing nature of work within the field.

Hybrid and remote work have been studied using job advertisements. Petersen gathered job postings for medical libraries from MEDLIB-L (2023) to compare changes to job ads from pre-pandemic (2018-2019) to post-pandemic (2021-2022). This study found a 16% increase of flexible work arrangements listed in postings between the two time periods. Use of the words “hybrid” or “remote” in the job ad itself also increased. While the study’s sample size was small, its findings highlighted emerging changes in library organizations’ recruitment strategies.

Similarly, two meta-analyses examined job advertisement research methods. Recommendations included using a sample of more than 100 job advertisements, clearly articulating research questions, detailing methodologies used to support reproducibility, and disclosing limitations (Harper, 2012; Kim & Angnakoon, 2016).

Methodology

For this study, the authors collected job advertisements posted between February and June 2023. Job listings were found on the American Library Association’s JobLIST and listservs such as eluna-announce and OhioLINK. For the purposes of this study, we defined the following terms:

• Remote: A work schedule that can be done entirely off-site; immediately or after an on-site training/orientation period.
• Hybrid: A work schedule that includes both off-site and on-site work hours, with 20% of the year or more off-site; immediately or after an on-site training/orientation period.
• On-site: A work schedule that is entirely or almost entirely on-site; off-site eligibility must be less than 20% of the year.
• Librarians: Positions requiring MLS/MLIS/MIS degree from an ALA accredited program (or international equivalent).

The criteria for inclusion were that positions had to be posted by a higher education institution in the United States and require a master’s degree accredited by the American Library Association (or international equivalent). Dean, associate/assistant dean and library director positions were excluded from the study because such hires would likely have considerable autonomy in setting their schedule, might report to someone outside of the library, and would potentially have a smaller likelihood of remote work due to the nature of work and campus level commitments. The position descriptions collected varied from entry level positions to those requiring multiple years of experience, and they spanned many sub-disciplines within libraries. The authors worked to gather as many job advertisements as possible, but aimed for “a minimum sample of 100 job adverts,” as recommended by Harper (2012, p. 47).

Due to the temporary nature of job advertisements, all listings were downloaded and saved. The authors used a spreadsheet to track relevant data including institution, position title, and salary information. When advertisements listed a person or position title to whom the position would report, the authors gathered and tracked that person’s name and email address. If no contact was listed, the authors found the person who seemed most appropriate from library websites using organizational charts, when available, or by contacting HR representatives listed in the job ad. In the end, the authors identified 141 individuals from 129 unique institutions, as some institutions posted more than one position during the time researchers were gathering positions. While the researchers initially tracked whether job postings included hybrid, remote, or on-site work arrangements, the categorizations on ALA’s JobList (e.g., On-Site, Hybrid, Remote) often contradicted the wording in job postings, so this variable was gathered from survey responses instead.

Meanwhile, the authors created the survey instrument based on their research questions. Once drafted, the survey questions were reviewed by two academic librarian colleagues. After the reviewers’ suggestions were incorporated, the survey was distributed to two different colleagues at the researchers’ own institutions for a final review. Once complete, the survey (see Appendix A) was distributed in early June 2023 and remained open for approximately a month, closing on July 10, 2023. To encourage participation, initial emails and reminders were personalized with the supervisors’ names, the institution and the title of the advertised position.

Demographic Profile of Institutions

Of the 141 surveys distributed, there were 72 deduplicated responses (51% response rate). Respondents were given the option of including their institution name or keeping the anonymity of their employer and answering three questions about their Carnegie Classification in these categories: Basic Classification, Size and Setting, and Control (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, n.d.). Most (64, or 89%) provided their institution name while eight (11%) provided Carnegie information. Of the 64 respondents who provided their institution name, three institutions were represented twice (due to different open positions at the same universities with different respondents), resulting in 61 unique institutions; it is unknown whether the additional eight responses were from unique institutions or whether there was some overlap.

Although there were 72 responses, only demographic questions required a response. In addition, skip logic was used, which means that participants did not see all survey questions, but only those relevant to them based on their prior responses, often resulting in fewer than 72 responses per question. In some cases, participants were directed to select all answers that applied, resulting in higher totals than respondents answering a question. Therefore, within the results, the response numbers for each question are noted. Additionally, due to rounding, percentages provided may not add up to 100.

For this study, most institutions (46, or 64%) were public, while 26 (36%) were private not-for-profit. One was a two-year associate’s degree granting institution while 71 (99%) were four-year institutions.

Size and Setting

Carnegie classification differs for four-year and two-year institutions. Two-year institutions do not have residential characteristics and the numbers used for size differ. Because of this, the single two-year institution was removed from the size and setting analysis, as was a respondent who did not provide this information. Of the 70 remaining four-year institutions, 27 (39%) were highly residential; 30 (43%) were primarily residential; and 13 (19%) were primarily nonresidential. Large institutions (i.e., at least 10,000 degree-seeking students) represented the majority of responses (41, or 59%), while medium institutions (i.e., 3,000–9,999 students) and small/very small institutions (i.e., fewer than 3,000 students) were almost equally represented (15, or 21% and 14, or 20%, respectively).

For some Carnegie classifications, there were not enough responses to consider all categories separately, so categories were simplified. For example, there were nine “Baccalaureate Colleges: Arts & Sciences Focus” institutions and one “Baccalaureate Colleges: Diverse Fields” institution; these were combined into one Baccalaureate Colleges classification with ten institutions (n = 70; 14%). Master’s Colleges & Universities had 13 institutions (19%) and Doctoral Universities had 47 (67%). Because of the small numbers of baccalaureate and master’s colleges and universities, these institutions were combined into one non-doctoral category for statistical analysis.

When asked whether librarians have faculty status at their institution, 37 (n = 72; 51%) said “yes, all have faculty status;” seven (10%) said “yes, some have faculty status;” and 28 (39%) said “no.”

Respondents were asked a question about tenure/continuing appointment eligibility at their institution, and could select all responses that applied, including “other.” In some cases, the researchers recoded answers based on the responses to “other.” For example, one respondent selected solely “other” and explained: “Faculty librarians are eligible for tenure; staff librarians are eligible for permanent appointment as we are a state institution.” This “other” response was changed to “Some are eligible for tenure,” and “some are eligible for continuing appointment.” See Table 1 for results excluding “other” responses.

Results

Survey responses included two types of data: quantitative (i.e., multiple choice) and qualitative (i.e., text responses). Fisher’s exact test was used to explore associations between types of classifications, since it can be applied to data in a two-by-two table is “especially useful when the total sample size or some of the expected values are small so that the chi-square test cannot be used.” (Colman, 2015) The demographic characteristics of basic classification, size and setting, control, and tenure/continuing appointment eligibility were run as independent variables and compared to the responses as dependent variables. Only statistically significant results are included here.

Flexible Work Arrangements for Librarians at Institution

Respondents were asked whether hybrid and/or remote options were available for full-time librarians within their library, and most of the 46 who answered the question said yes (see Table 2). Several respondents indicated that FWAs impacted morale, both negatively when not available equally to all employees, and positively as a relatively new benefit.

Most (46, n = 58; or 64%) respondents’ institutions adopted hybrid and/or remote work options for librarians during or after March 2020, the COVID-19 period. Only 12 (n = 58, 17%) had flexible work arrangements before the onset COVID-19, a difference as compared to Hosoi et al.’s findings from ARL directors where 52% indicated FWA availability prior to the pandemic (2021).

The results of three separate Fisher’s exact tests indicate significant associations between hybrid and/or remote work arrangements and Doctoral institutions (p = .001), large institutions (p = .002), and those offering continuing appointment (p = .05). These three demographic classifications are more likely to have hybrid and/or remote work arrangements available than their counterparts. See tables 3, 4, and 5 in Appendix B.

Salaries

The researchers analyzed all 141 position descriptions gathered, and those results, in addition to respondents’ answers regarding salaries, are provided here. Of all the job advertisements gathered, 81 (n = 141, 57%) included salaries or information about salary scales that outlined specific ranges. The minimum starting salaries were used for analysis. For this larger group, the minimum salary mean was $63,994 and the median was $60,116. Due to the wide variability of entry level to senior management positions and geographic locations, the minimum starting salaries varied widely, from $29,861 to $156,000.

Survey respondents were asked whether they included a salary range, maximum, or minimum in their job description. For identifiable institutions, the response to this question was used to cross reference salaries and add the minimum salary listed in the job description as a variable for analysis. There were nine instances where respondents’ answers did not match the information found in position descriptions. The researchers created a researcher-confirmed variable that recoded the nine responses that did not match the information found in the posted positions. Many positions (43, n = 72, or 60%) included a salary. For the 40 institutions (n = 43) whose positions were identifiable, the mean salary was $62,889 and the median salary was $60,658.

The results of Fisher’s exact test indicate a significant association (p = .026) between library size (i.e., large vs. not large) and inclusion of a salary in job description. Large libraries were more likely to include a salary (see Table 6 in Appendix B). Moreover, positions and libraries with hybrid/remote eligibility had higher minimum salary means than those without stated flexible work arrangements, based on survey responses (see table 7).

Flexible Work Arrangements

Next, respondents were asked whether their posted position was eligible for hybrid or remote work. Hybrid positions were in the majority (see Table 8).

Those who indicated their open position was hybrid, remote, or negotiable were asked two follow-up questions. The first, “Does this position require an on-site training/orientation period?” received 49 responses. Ranked by frequency, the responses were “Yes, mostly on-site” (22, or 45%), “Yes, entirely on-site” (16, or 33%), “Other” (8, or 16%), and “No” (3, or 6%). Most of the other responses indicated it was unknown, unspecified, or dependent on various factors. The second follow-up question asked if there were limitations on where the hybrid/remote employee can live. There were 41 responses: “Other” (18, or 44%), “Yes, same state” (11, or 27%), “No” (10, or 24%), and “Yes, same country” (2, or 5%). Eleven of the other responses explained that the employee must be proximate, but no specific geographic limiter was specified.

To identify positions’ areas of responsibility, respondents were provided with a list of areas of work within academic librarianship, modified from the ARL Annual Salary Survey (2021), and asked to select all applicable areas. For 71 positions, the 18 position areas were represented 125 times, with between one and five subjects provided per position (see figure 1).

For areas with at least five associated positions, the researchers looked at hybrid/remote eligibility (see figure 2). In these responses, Cataloging/Bibliographic Control/Metadata positions were the least likely to be eligible for hybrid/remote work (1, n = 7; or 14%) and Acquisitions/Electronic Resources positions were most likely to have these flexible work arrangements (8, n =12; or 67%, with one of the four remaining positions being negotiable).

The statistically significant results related to flexible work arrangements for the posted positions were similar to the results for library-wide arrangements. Two Fisher’s exact tests indicated that Doctoral (p = .024) and large (p = .011) institutions’ posted positions were more likely to provide hybrid/remote work arrangements than their counterparts. See Tables 9 and 10 in appendix B.

Inclusion of Hybrid or Remote Eligibility or an On-Site Requirement in Position Description

All survey participants were asked whether they included information about hybrid/remote eligibility or ineligibility in their position description; most did not (see Table 11).

When answers to this question were compared against whether a position was hybrid-eligible or fully on-site, responses revealed that information about work location arrangements was slightly more likely to be included for hybrid positions (16, n = 35; or 46%) than on-site positions (7, n = 21; or 33%). Interestingly, two thirds (27, n = 41) of respondents who answered that they did not include work arrangement information in their job descriptions indicated that hybrid (18), remote (1), or negotiable (8) work options were available.

The 19 respondents who indicated that they included hybrid/remote eligibility in their job descriptions were asked whether they included this information in hopes of increasing the competitiveness of their pool. More than three quarters responded affirmatively (15, n = 19; or 79%). Only two (11%) said no, one (5%) said it was not discussed, and the last person selected “other” and commented, “Not sure, but probably helped.” This same group was asked when they started to note hybrid and/or remote eligibility in job descriptions, pre- or post-COVID, and all 11 who answered said post-COVID.

Likewise, the nine respondents who indicated their job descriptions noted an on-site requirement were asked whether their organization was concerned that including this information might result in a less competitive candidate pool. Three (33%) said yes, two (22%) said no, two (22%) said it was not discussed, and the remaining two responded “other” and commented:

• “No, but they should have been. We received only three applicants, none of whom were qualified. We’re going to have to re-advertise” (Public, Large, Doctoral High Research Activity, Primarily Residential).
• “Individuals are concerned, but the institution is not” (Public, Large, Doctoral Very High Research Activity, Primarily Residential).

The group of 41 that did not include hybrid eligibility/ ineligibility in their postings were asked if they considered including this information and 23 responded. Most (13, n = 23; or 57%) indicated they did not discuss the choice while four (17%) did. Six responded “other” and provided further context:

• “We did consider it briefly, but this position is heavily public-service oriented. And, barring any bigger policy or support from Human Resources, we didn’t include any language in the job description” (Private, Small, Baccalaureate Arts & Sciences, Highly Residential).
• “Although hybrid is an option—it is only hybrid in ‘working from home.’ Since there is still an expectation of at least 60% of time spent on campus, and because this is a teaching position with in-person teaching, candidates would still need to live within driving distance of campus. Marketing it as hybrid seemed a bit of false advertising” (Public, Large, Doctoral High Research Activity, Primarily Nonresidential).

This same group was asked whether they considered that including this information might affect the competitiveness of their pool. Only seven out of 31 respondents (23%) said yes. Most did not discuss this.

The survey closed with a series of general questions for all respondents. When asked how hybrid/remote work arrangements have changed at their institutions since the pandemic and presented with five options, including “other,” and directed to select all that apply, 69 people responded with 104 areas of change (see figure 3).

Some of the “other” responses included:

• “We are 100% back in person [at all of our library locations]” (Public, Medium, Doctoral High Research Activity, Primarily Residential).
• “While library faculty have always had the flexibility for remote work, now all library employees can work remotely at least one day a week. The model is working so well that we are considering increasing the number of days individuals are eligible to work remotely” (Private, Large, Doctoral Very High Research Activity, Highly Residential).
• “Change of library leadership since COVID-19 resulted in more openness to allowing library staff to work hybrid schedules” (Private, Small, Baccalaureate Arts & Sciences, Highly Residential).

Discussion

In response to our research questions we found that salaries for hybrid/remote positions and on-site positions are roughly comparable. A recent study with an admittedly small sample size, found that “salaries for remote/hybrid positions did not appear to be less than in-person postings.” (Peterson, 2023) Our study, although it also had a relatively small sample size, replicated this finding. Large research institutions were more likely to post salaries within the job advertisements.

For research question two, Figure 2 highlights the differences between hybrid/remote eligibility based on job functions; yet the sample size of our respondents may not make this more widely generalizable. In this study, hybrid options were much more prevalent than fully remote positions. Furthermore, several qualitative comments noted that individuals were expected to be in person at least two days a week, which limits some flexibility in where individuals can live as they would need to commute into campus.

The two areas of most interest from survey responses focused on the recruitment impact of including/excluding FWAs in job descriptions as well as a theme around the evolving nature of hybrid/remote work options and their uneven reflection in job advertisements. Some of the hindrances to include information about hybrid/remote work in eligible job postings included stasis, campus requirements, and concerns about the permanence of flexible work arrangements. These areas will be discussed in greater detail.

Recruitment Impact

One of this study’s research questions (RQ5) was “Does the potential impact on recruitment influence decisions regarding whether to include work arrangement information in academic librarian job descriptions?” and a series of both quantitative and qualitative questions addressed this topic. Respondents who included hybrid/remote eligibility (15, n = 19) considered that this would positively impact the competitiveness of their pool, but most (13, n = 23) who did not include information about workplace flexibility did not consider its impact on the recruitment. It is worth noting that two thirds (27, n = 41) of respondents who answered that they did not include work location in their job descriptions either offer hybrid/remote options or are open to negotiation. Therefore, academic libraries that allow flexible work arrangements should consider adding it to job postings to attract applicants. Open-ended responses supported this idea:

• “No remote option is, increasingly, going to translate into reduced applicant pools” (Public, Large, Doctoral High Research Activity, Highly Residential).
• “Once there was an official [work from home] option, my department discussed how best to integrate it so that we continue our work. Adding it to this job (and others) was seen as a way to hopefully drive more interest in the positions since it’s seen as a benefit” (Private, Large, Doctoral Very High Research Activity, Highly Residential).
• “I strongly believe that including hybrid and/or remote eligibility/ineligibility in job descriptions to attract competitive candidates have changed considerably. It is important to include some hybrid/remote work in librarianship and management positions” (Public, Medium, Doctoral Very High Research Activity, Primarily Nonresidential).

Evolving Nature of Remote/Hybrid Work and Job Advertisements

One of the lasting impacts of the pandemic is that about half of all positions now have hybrid or remote eligibility, according to both ACRL Benchmark data (2022) and the responses related to posted positions from this study. Libraries in doctoral and large institutions are leading the way in this area. Why do some academic libraries leave FWAs out of job postings? These findings show that many library search committees do not discuss whether to include this information when recruiting. It is conceivable that positions are posted with a pre-COVID template, hiring managers are revising an existing position description, or otherwise just are not considering workplace modality during recruitment. Some responses indicate that institutional policies have been a barrier:

• “Institutionally, hybrid and/or remote eligibility has not been included in job descriptions. This summer, the college passed a first-ever work from home policy, so future discussions about including this information in job descriptions may evolve. With our current opening, we did share with candidates during the interview process that this policy was forthcoming, as we felt it might entice some candidates when considering work/life balance” (Private, Very Small, Baccalaureate Arts & Sciences, Highly Residential).
• “I always appreciate seeing positions that have been thoughtfully designed to be remote-eligible. However, my institution does not permit it for these positions.” (Public, Medium, Master’s, Primarily Residential).

Others pointed to the evolving nature of institutional policies about working from home. Some comments indicated concerns about including a benefit in a job posting that is not guaranteed to last:

• “At this time technically anyone can be eligible to work from home, but HR requires people to apply and approves or doesn’t approve them on a case by case basis. I tell candidates the position is eligible for work from home (probably 1 or 2 days a week if non-faculty librarian) after a probation period, but that the university might cancel the work from home policy at any time or deny it in their specific case and I can’t guarantee it will be an option when they come off probation, or even tomorrow” (Public, Large, Doctoral High Research Activity, Primarily Residential).

The future state of flexible work arrangements seems mixed in libraries’ application. As Hosoi et al. note, ARL directors believe there will be more flexibility in the future (2021), yet individual campuses have taken drastically different approaches, with some giving no option for remote work. Overall, campus-wide policies are informing many library approaches, though interpretation and implementation is still evolving, even on campuses where FWA policies have been adopted. Due to this wide variability, job seekers should ask or negotiate hybrid/flexible/remote work schedules when pursuing new employment opportunities, particularly when the work mode is not specified in the job advertisement.

In addition, some respondents indicated there was more nuance for work modality than could be listed in job advertisements. One respondent stated that, “it makes it harder for folks searching for truly 100% remote eligible jobs” (Public, Large, Doctoral High Research Activity, Primarily Nonresidential). Eligibility of positions for flexible work arrangements, an important factor for both retention of existing employees and recruitment of new employees, is often challenging to locate, may be available at an institutional level or at a library organization level, or may be negotiable by position. Therefore, recruitment success as it relates to hybrid/remote eligibility noted in job advertisements would be an excellent future area of research.

Study Limitation

This study would have benefitted from a larger sample size to allow wider applicability at different types of institutions. The authors gathered position postings for three and a half months; a more expansive study would require a longer lead period, which might make tracking down information about older positions more challenging. Given that results related to hybrid/remote eligibility and inclusion of FWAs in job postings align with ACRL 2022 trends responses, there is reason to believe that these 72 responses are representative of academic libraries in the United States.

Conclusion

In comparing hybrid and remote eligibility from survey results with salary minimums posted in job ads, this study’s authors found that hybrid/remote eligible positions had competitive salaries with solely in-person positions. In examining differences between hybrid/remote and on-site arrangement by job functions, some types of positions, such as electronic resources, had more hybrid/remote eligibility than others; however, due to a small sample size, this may not be generalizable. Large, research-intensive institutions were more likely than other types of institutions to post salary information and indicate whether hybrid/remote options were possible.

When posting job advertisements, those that included hybrid/remote eligibility were more likely to have considered the influence on recruitment than those who omitted workplace modality. While the majority of this survey’s respondents did not include hybrid/remote options in the job description, two thirds of those indicated that some flexible work was possible. As recruiters in library and information science in a post-COVID-19 pandemic environment, it has become more prevalent to allow greater flexibility in work location and therefore if allowable for the position, it should be noted in the job description to recruit the most robust search pool. As with many studies of job advertisements, this work seeks to capture a snapshot in time of changing policies and approaches following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Mark Robison and Dr. Galen Talis for testing and providing valuable suggestions on the survey instrument, to Galen for providing feedback on a draft of this paper and to the two anonymous reviewers whose feedback improved the quality of this manuscript.

References

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2022). ACRL 2022 trends. Benchmark: Library metrics and trends version. Association of College and Research Libraries.

Colman, A. M. (2015). Fisher’s exact test. In A Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 12 Feb. 2024, from https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199657681.001.0001/acref-9780199657681-e-3158

Croneis, K. S., & Henderson, P. (2002). Electronic and digital librarian positions: A content analysis of announcements from 1990 through 2000. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 232–237.

Eclevia, M. R., Fredeluces, J. C. L. T., Maestro, R. S., & Eclevia Jr., C. L. (2019). What makes a data librarian?: An analysis of job descriptions and specifications for data librarian. Qualitative & Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 8(3), 273–290.

Green, A. (2022). Post Covid-19: Expectations for academic library collections, remote work, and resource description and discovery staffing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(4), 102564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102564

Green, A. (2023). Academic library employees and their work modality options and preferences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(5), 102764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102764

Hall, A. R., & Duggins, B. (2022). Leadership, communication, and worker wellbeing during the early pandemic response. Journal of Library Administration, 62(4), 494–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2022.2057129

Han, M.-J., & Hswe, P. (2010). The evolving role of the metadata librarian. Library Resources & Technical Services, 54(3), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.54n3.129

Harper, R. (2012). The collection and analysis of job advertisements: A review of research methodology. Library and Information Research, 36(112), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg499

Heady, C., Vossler, J., & Weber, M. (2021). Risk and ARL academic library policies in response to COVID-19. Journal of Library Administration, 61(7), 735–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2021.1972725

Hinchliffe, L. J., & Wolff-Eisenberg, C. (2020, March 24). First this, now that: A look at 10-day trends in academic library response to COVID-19. Ithaka S+R. https://sr.ithaka.org/blog/first-this-now-that-a-look-at-10-day-trends-in-academic-library-response-to-covid19/

Hosoi, M., Reiter, L., & Zabel, D. (2021). Reshaping perspectives on flexible work: The impact of COVID-19 on academic library management. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 21(4), 695–713. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2021.0038

Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (n.d.). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/carnegie-classification/classification-methodology/size-setting-classification/

Kim, J., & Angnakoon, P. (2016). Research using job advertisements: A methodological assessment. Library & Information Science Research, 38(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.11.006

Kim, J., Warga, E., & Moen, W. E. (2013). Competencies required for digital curation: An analysis of job advertisements. International Journal of Digital Curation, 8(1), 66–83.

Petersen, D. (2023). Remote and hybrid work options for health science librarians: A survey of job postings before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 42(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2023.2194144

Plassche, K. (2022). Evaluating map and geospatial academic library position descriptions. College & Research Libraries, 83(4). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.4.631

Reed, R. B., & Butkovich, N. J. (2017). Comparison of data and informatics responsibilities and job titles between academic STEM and medical librarians. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 87. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1708

Todorinova, L. (2018). A mixed-method study of undergraduate and first year librarian Positions in academic libraries in the United States. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(2), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.02.005

Todorinova, L. (2021). One year in: A survey of public services librarians on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Library Administration, 61(7), 776–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2021.1972728

Triumph, T. F., & Beile, P. M. (2015). The trending academic library job market: An analysis of library position announcements from 2011 with comparisons to 1996 and 1988. College & Research Libraries, 76(6), 716–739. https://doi.org/doi:10.5860/crl.76.6.716

Virello, M. (2022). Working remotely: A practical guide for librarians. Rowman & Littlefield.

Wise, S., Henninger, M., & Kennan, M. A. (2011). Changing trends in LIS job advertisements. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 42(4), 268–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2011.10722241

Xia, J., & Wang, M. (2014). Competencies and responsibilities of social science data librarians: An analysis of job descriptions. College & Research Libraries, 75(3), 362–388. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl13-435

Yadav, A. K. S. (2022). Key skills and competencies of LIS professionals in the digital library environment: A content analysis of job advertisements. Library Management, 43(1), 50–65.

Appendix A: Survey Instrument

Definitions

Remote: A work schedule that can be done entirely off-site; immediately or after an on-site training/orientation period

Hybrid: A work schedule that includes both off-site and on-site work hours, with 20% of the year or more off-site; immediately or after an on-site training/orientation period

On-site: A work schedule that is entirely or almost entirely on-site; off-site eligibility must be less than 20% of the year.

Librarians: Positions requiring MLS/MLIS/MIS degree from an ALA accredited program (or international equivalent).

Continuing appointment: Similar to tenure, continuing appointment is awarded after a probationary period and provides job security in recognition of performance and potential.

*required

Institutional Information

1. *What is the name of your institution? If you’re on a branch campus, please include the campus location. This information will be used to pull Carnegie Classification information and will NOT be used to identify you or your institution in the published results- aggregate data are all that will be reported. [radio buttons]
   • If you prefer not to answer this question, please select this option and you will be taken to three questions regarding your Carnegie Classification.

Institution (including branch) name: [Jump to question “Do librarians have faculty status at your institution?”]

[If responded “If you prefer not to answer this question, please select this option and you will be taken to three questions regarding your Carnegie Classification.” to the Institution name question, they will see questions below. Those who provided the institution name will skip these questions.]

Carnegie Classification Information

In the questions below, please provide your institution’s Carnegie Classification information, found here.

2. Basic Classification: [text]
3. Size and Setting Classification: [text]
4. Institutional Control:
   • Public
   • Private not-for-profit
   • Private for-profit

[Jump to question “Do librarians have faculty status at your institution?”]

5. Do librarians have faculty status at your institution?
   • Yes, all
   • Yes, some
   • No
6. Are librarians eligible for tenure or continuing appointment at your institution? (select all that apply)
   • Yes, all are eligible for tenure
   • Yes, all are eligible for continuing appointment
   • No, neither tenure nor continuing appointment
   • Some are eligible for tenure, but not all
   • Some are eligible for continuing appointment, but not all
   • Other (please explain)
7. Are hybrid and/or remote options available for full-time librarians within your library?
   • Yes, all are eligible for hybrid and/or remote work
   • Some are eligible for hybrid and/or remote work, but not all
   • No, no one is eligible for hybrid and/or remote work [if no, jump to “Which area best describes your open…”]

[If responded “Yes, all are eligible for hybrid and/or remote work” or “Some are eligible for hybrid and/or remote work, but not all” to “Are hybrid and/or remote options available for full-time librarians within your library?]

8. When did your library adopt hybrid and/or remote work options for librarians?
   • During or after March 2020 (Covid-19 period)
   • Before March 2020 (pre-Covid-19 period)

Open Position Questions

For the next section, all of the questions relate to the vacant/open position you were contacted about for this survey.

9. Which area best describes your open position’s area of work in your academic library? (select all that apply)
   • Access Services
   • Acquisitions/Electronic Resources
   • Archiving/Curatorial/Rare Books
   • Assessment/Analytics/User Experience
   • Cataloging/Bibliographic Control/Metadata
   • Collection Development/Management/Strategy
   • Data Services/GIS
   • Digital Initiatives/Services
   • Exhibits Coordination
   • Instruction
   • Media/Multimedia Specialist
   • Preservation/Conservation
   • Press/Publishing
   • Research/Reference
   • Scholarly Communication/Copyright
   • Subject Specialist/Liaison Librarian
   • Systems/Information Technology
   • Web/ Application Development
   • Other (please explain)
10. Did you include a salary range, maximum, or minimum in your job description?
    • Yes
    • No
11. Is this position eligible for hybrid or remote work?
    • Yes, hybrid (remote 20% of the year or more)
    • Yes, remote
    • Negotiable
    • No [if no, jump to “Did you include a hybrid and/or remote eligibility or an on-site requirement in your job description?”]

[If responded Yes (either hybrid or remote) or Negotiable to “Is this position eligible for hybrid or remote work?]

12. Does this position require an on-site training/orientation period?
    • Yes, entirely on-site
    • Yes, mostly on-site
    • No
    • Other (please explain)
13. If remote/hybrid work is supported, are there limitations about where the employees can live?
    • Yes, same state
    • Yes, same country
    • No
    • Other (please explain)
14. Did you include hybrid and/or remote eligibility or an on-site requirement in your job description?
    • Yes, included hybrid and/or remote eligibility
    • Yes, included on-site requirement
    • No

[If responded “Yes, included hybrid and/or remote eligibility” to “Did you include hybrid and/or remote eligibility or an on-site requirement in your job description?”]

15. Was your organization’s decision to include hybrid and/or remote eligibility in your job description related to generating a more competitive candidate pool?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Did not discuss
    • Other (please explain)
16. What other considerations led to including this position’s hybrid and/or remote eligibility in your job description?

[Text box]

17. When did your library begin to note hybrid and/or remote eligibility in job descriptions?
    • During or after March 2020 (Covid-19 period)
    • Before March 2020 (pre-Covid-19 period)

[If responded “Yes, included on-site requirement” to “Did you include hybrid and/or remote eligibility or an on-site requirement in your job description?”]

18. What considerations led to including this position’s on-site requirement in your job description?

[Text box]

19. Was your organization concerned that including the on-site requirement in your job description might result in a less competitive candidate pool?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Did not discuss
    • Other (please explain)

[If no to “Did you include hybrid and/or remote eligibility or an on-site requirement in your job description?”]

20. Did your organization consider that including hybrid/remote eligibility or an on-site requirement in your job description might result in a more/ less competitive candidate pool?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Did not discuss
    • Other (please explain)
21. Did your library consider including the position’s hybrid and/or remote eligibility/ ineligibility in your job description?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Other (please explain)

[General Questions for all participants]

22. How have remote/hybrid work options changed at your institution since COVID? (select all that apply)
    • More people are working hybrid and/or remote schedules
    • The number of off-site work hours allowed have increased
    • More had been working off-site/hybrid for a while, but now more are working back in person
    • No change
    • Other (please explain)
23. How have your thoughts about including hybrid and/or remote eligibility / ineligibility in job descriptions evolved?

[text box]

24. If you have any comments regarding any of the topics covered in this survey, please share them here:

[text box]

25. If you would like to receive the results of this survey (with identifying information removed), please provide your email address.

[text box]

Appendix B: Tables of Statistical Significance

1. * Ruth Sara Connell, Professor of Library Science, Director of Access Services, Valparaiso University, Christopher Center for Library & Information Resources ruth.connell@valpo.edu; Meris Mandernach Longmeier, Professor, Head of Research Services, The Ohio State University Libraries, longmeier.10@osu.edu. ©2025 Ruth S. Connell and Meris Mandernach Longmeier, Attribution-NonCommercial (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) CC BY-NC.