Hi there

I think it's clear what constitutes academic but these books are selected
for the MA in Management at the IOE (UL), hence they focus on the
achievement of senior academics who have gone on to become managers. I am
aware of the ALC scales, being on them, but it is becoming more and more
clear that if one wants to get on in a university one doesn't stay in the
library (this is true for other sectors as well). What strikes me is that
being such a feminised profession, and at least being given an academic nod
for subject specialism, nobody has bothered to include librarians (admin
does not cover this aspect in these books). I have not taken the whole
section out, just 5, and admittedly they were written bet. 1997-2001. On the
whole, academics do not mix with librarians, librarians do not come out of
their little shell, so I am not surprised about this - but I expected at
least a footnote (even saying that libraries are outside the scope of the
discussion for women and management).

Needless to say, there are no books in this section devoted to management
and libraries, either female or male.

I resent it very much to be considered a "service" department (along with
catering and xeroxing ?)

Maybe it's different in Scotland, but I doubt it -

Emilce






>From: Caroline Breslin <[log in to unmask]>
>To: 'Emilce Rees' <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: RE: wages again and "academic" posts
>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:08:11 -0000
>
>
>Hi Emilce,
>
>Did any of the research have definitions of what constitutes 'Academic' or
>'Administrative' staff etc.?
>I work in HE and library staff are categorised as 'Admin, Library and
>Computing' which is classed as 'Academic Related' so perhaps they are
>included but the definitions are not apparent?
>
>cb
>
>Caroline Breslin
>Information Resources Directorate
>University of Strathclyde
>
>Tel:  0141 548 3527
>Fax: 0141 553 4121
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>http://www.mis.strath.ac.uk/predict
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From:  Emilce Rees [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  19 February 2003 10:50
>To:    [log in to unmask]
>Subject:       wages again and "academic" posts
>
>More on the discussion of "national" concerns - I have found two which I
>think are more relevant to those in the academic sector than the People's
>Network:
>
>a. From: Literacy, leaving school and jobs. Samantha Parsons and John
>Bynner, Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, published
>in March 1999 by the Basic Skills Agency. These findings are based on data
>from the International Adult Literacy Survey (Adult Literacy in Britain,
>1997)
>
>"For those that worked more men and women with poor literacy received a low
>wage - under 13,000 pounds a year for men, under 9,000 pounds a year for
>women". Most of the jobs at C2 and C3 level mirror this pay, even in
>London.
>
>
>b. Books on "academic women" / women managers at university fail to make
>any reference to librarians. Admin staff get mentioned, not a single entry
>for professional women librarians:
>
>Brooks, Ann - Academic Women (1997) provides a breakdown of
>categories. "Senior administrative" and administrative officer" get an
>entry.
>
>So it's not a question of the glass ceiling, but of total invisibility.
>
>So much for "academic-related" status (and literacy, judging for the
>starting salary of the so-called para-professionals).
>
>
>Emilce Rees


_________________________________________________________________
Overloaded with spam? With MSN 8, you can filter it out
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&pgmarket=en-gb&XAPID=32&DI=1059