7. STRAND C: SURVEY OF EIS PROVISION AND PURCHASING

7.1 Aims and objectives

Strand C comprises the originally distinct project to "undertake a survey of resource access provided by individual HEIs in the UK together with purchasing intentions." As envisaged this would be addressed by means of a census of all HEI Web sites supplemented by a series of interviews with senior library staff relating to purchasing decisions and intentions. Time constraints and some under-estimation of the time taken to examine Web sites has meant that a survey has supplanted the census.

 

7.2 Literature review

7.2.1 HEI Web sites

The literature survey undertaken as a part of the project uncovered a considerable number of papers on HEI Web sites but very few on the provision of EIS through these sites. Among the latter are the Database Resources Research Group at the Department of Information Science, City University (London) that surveyed samples of UK HEIs in 1995 and 1996, finding increasing levels of expenditure on electronic resources and a strong trend to abandon CD-ROMs in favour of the same data on WWW-based services (Leach and East 1996; Leach 1998); Law (1997) gives an overview of UK HEI spending on electronic resources, and details what services they get from JISC and JANET. Also with respect to the UK, Bex and Miller (1999) provide 1998 figures for 133 HEIs’ subscriptions to JISC datasets, and in 1998 the JISC Monitoring and Advisory Unit (MAU 1998) surveyed HEIs about their provision of electronic information resources.

The more general papers deal with the process of consultation and planning, writing, maintaining and evaluating the effectiveness of individual LIS Websites (e.g. Biddiscombe et al. 1997); or groups of library services (e.g. Kelly 1997 or Survey of UK academic library Web sites 1998). Many recent British papers in this field emanated from the WebWatch Project, operated by the UK Office for Library and Information Networking (UKOLN) for the British Library (Kelly and Peacock 1999), which carried out a number of surveys of different aspects of public and academic library Website content, structure and usability.

Other papers deal with specific aspects of content such as OPACs (e.g. Lubans 2000), electronic journals (e.g. Joint et al. 1999) or comparative studies of library Websites (e.g., Clyde 1996).

 

7.2.2 Management issues

The management and purchasing issues to be addressed by the second part of this strand are covered in the literature although perhaps not to the extent one might expect. Issues of access versus ownership (Simon 1997) are mentioned, as are collection development policies (Weintraub and McKinney 1999). Materials budget allocation systems have needed revising to cope with a significant shift from print to electronic formats (including the hardware needed to access electronic resources) and with the demands of new forms of document delivery (e.g. Lubans 2000). Co-operation in resource ownership and more especially in the negotiation of licensing arrangements with resource providers has become extremely important for most academic libraries, leading to the creation of consortia and their associated negotiating bodies (e.g. Woodward 1999). Issues such as copyright and fair use have to be rethought in circumstances where it is no longer possible to monitor or control the use of materials (Simon 1997). The concept of end-user charges also has to be reconsidered (e.g. Maughan 1999).

 

7.3 Methodology

7.3.1 Web site survey

A census instrument was designed to document each HEI Web site against 19 of the 21 discrete EIS types identified. Following discussions with the JISC Scientific Advisor and with the Project and Advisory Boards, and after scrutinizing the results of piloting, a final instrument was developed (Appendix 12). Two categories were omitted: "Own Web site" (the project team would be extremely surprised not to find a link back to HEI home page) and e-mail (personal e-mail addresses would not form a part of information unit Web pages).

A number of difficulties have been identified in the application of the methodology. These centre on the varied and occasionally inconsistent approaches used by HEIs to present available resources on their Web sites. Different HEIs will view and describe the same resources quite differently, and it was often difficult to ascertain exactly what was being provided and by which delivery mechanism, from a visit to the Web site. As has been detailed in the section on taxonomy (4.3), we were already aware that definitions were difficult and that even given our categorisation of definitions, some resources would not fall neatly into any one category. For example, electronic document delivery services, full-text databases (such as UMI’s ProQuest Direct or Gale’s European Business ASAP) and discrete (or collections of) electronic journals all deliver the same product – the full text of journal articles. However, there are four possible ways of describing the products and thus four categories in our schema (document delivery; database; e-journal; e-journal collection) that demonstrate the essential differences. The Web Site survey has shown many instances in which databases such as the Gale’s ASAP series which deliver the full text of selected journal articles (as opposed to the complete electronic journal) are treated as electronic journal collections equivalent to CatchWord, Ingenta, JSTOR or IDEAL. Some 31.81% of sites visited referred to full-text databases as journal collections.

The confusion/cross-classification that appears to exist between full-text databases and actual e-journals has consequences for the user, especially if the user has not developed the ability to evaluate resources and mistakenly thinks that the database offers all of the features and attributes of an e-journal, e.g. serendipity and context. They are inadvertently being misled by the LIS service.

There is also a problem associated with links to subject gateways. According to the JUSTEIS definitions, Gateways are defined as "Web sites that exist solely to guide users to a selection of quality controlled resources in a limited subject area". Again, our definition does not necessarily match that of many HEI EIS Web designers. It was not possible to sample every gateway to which a site points so that, in addition to the OMNIs, EEVLs and SOSIGs, there are a number of other sites which appear to be gateways but which may, for example, lack the quality control element which is so important. In the interests of providing a true picture of a site’s contents, we have included all gateways that appear to serve the purpose of subject portals.

Many HEI sites provide access for their users through their own subject "gateways" or pages. While this serves their users well, it makes for difficulties in undertaking this kind of research in that many resource pages have to be examined. One inevitable result of this is the double counting of resources (such as Dissertation Abstracts or individual Web sites) that appear on more than one subject page. While the researchers tried to avoid counting a resource more than once, we feel that there may be some approximation inherent in the totals.

Finally, the relatively high numbers recorded in the "Other Web Sites" category suggests that in future cycles we might wish to categorise this group further (although this will make the Web surveys still more difficult).

About 10% of the Web sites in the sample were analysed by two researchers in an attempt to assess and mediate the above problems. While this produced inevitable and expected discrepancies, these were not as great as we had expected and generally tended to endorse the methodology.

As has been noted above, the original methodology called for a census of all HEI Web sites but it became evident that this was not practicable within the time period. Typically, Web sites were taking a minimum of 3 hours to assess – some 3 times what had been allocated.

The sample was designed to include the Web sites of the HEIs visited in Strand A and to cover approximately 25% of all HEIs. A total of 44 HEI Web sites were analysed. Cycle 1 methodology required only a count of resources itemised on HEI information Web sites with details being recorded of JISC-mediated EIS, gateways and electronic journal collections only. A random sample of HEI Web sites will again be used in the second cycle.

The results of the Web survey were recorded on analysis sheets (see Appendix 13) and entered into Microsoft Excel for further processing.

 

7.3.2 Interviews with librarians concerning EIS purchasing intentions

This strand sought to elicit information on the EIS purchasing intentions of librarians. For this purpose, a second methodological approach was adopted in Strand C, comprising telephone interviews with senior LIS staff in a sample of HEIs. Interview sites (10) were chosen to represent all types of HEI within the sample (Tables 7.1 and 7.2), excluding the medium new university category. An additional site for the large new university category was taken instead.

 

Old university, Russell Group

Old university, non-Russell

New university

College of HE upgrading

Large (>18000 students)

1

NA

2

NA

Medium

(>6000 and

<18000 students)

1

(1 pilot)

1

(no sites included)

(1 pilot*)

Small (<6000 students)

NA

1

1*

1

Note : * denotes used in analysis, not full transcripts

Table 7.1: Types of HEI sites used for interviews of purchasing intentions

 

Site Code

Selection

10

0

11

1

12

0

13

0

14

1

15

0

16

0

17

1

18

1

19

0

20

1

21

0

22

1

23

0

24

0

25

0

26

0

27

0

28

1

29

0

30

1

31

0

32

0

33

0

34

1

35

0

36

0

37

0

40

0

Total

10

Table 7.2: Distribution of purchasing interviews among sites

 

A data collection instrument was created and the preliminary set of questions was discussed with a member of the Advisory Board. The analysis of Web sites (7.3.1), coupled with experiences of the Strand A interviews at the sites, suggested that the survey of purchasing intentions should include some more general questions about the LIS managers’ views of the management of the hybrid library. It was felt that the responses might help in interpretation of the policies followed for the LIS Web site management and development, and promotion of EIS in general.

At this juncture, it is appropriate to point to the potential relevance of this data to the new HEINUS project.

The instrument was piloted at two sites and the final amended interview schedule agreed with the Project Team (Appendix 11). Questions covered general perceptions of the benefits of EIS, concerns, arrangements for branch campuses and remote users, management issues and staffing, web site development, budgeting and collection development, attitudes towards licensing, electronic journals and their development, and evaluation of the performance of EIS.

Librarians were sent the questions prior to the telephone interviews. Only the pilot interviews were conducted face to face. The telephone interviews concerned with purchasing intentions were conducted in the period 23 March – 12 April 2000.

Responses varied considerably in length. Some interviews were very brief, but others took around an hour to complete. One site provided written responses to the questions and interviewer’s notes were used for a second site.

Given the range of responses, and small sample size, it seemed more useful to include all responses (pilot plus amended schedule) in the data analysis, rather than omit the pilot responses.

Telephone interviews were transcribed and the data entered into NUD*IST, along with the relevant notes material. Additional categories were added to the existing NUD*IST hierarchy (Appendix 13). The survey of purchasing intentions could have been analysed separately from the Strand A survey of user behaviour but the librarians’ responses were relevant to the user behaviour survey as well as to Strand C, and therefore the data was amalgamated in the same database.

 

7.4 Web survey results

The picture presented by the raw statistics is not particularly helpful, and a great deal of manipulation of the data had to be undertaken to elicit a comparatively limited array of findings. For example, we can see (Table 7.3) that 37 (84.09%) of the 44 sites contained links to search engines; the numbers linked within these varied from 1 to 60 search engines (Table 7.4) with an average of 16.11 per HEI. These figures cover both search engines linked from one of the central information services pages and those from within the subject trees or other areas of the site. This data seems of limited value itself and the following conclusion could not have been gleaned from the data alone had the researcher not been able to link personal observations. Sites with the higher numbers are predominantly those that link to French, German, Spanish, Italian or other country/language-specific or subject-oriented search engines from within their subject trees. It is a little surprising that all HEIs do not link to at least one search engine simply as a matter of user convenience, and we have found, for example, that the Strand A student interviews show a slight tendency for students to use the search engine offered on a home page and for students within any one HEI to favour the same search engine. However, there are no practical correlations that can be made between the top-level data such as this from the two strands.

 

EIS

Number and percentage of sites linking

n=44

JISC negotiated services

40

(90.90)

Databases via Web

41

(93.18)

Data sets

25

(56.82)

Text archives

25

(56.82)

Gateways

42

(95.45)

OPACs (other institutions)

42

(95.45)

Other institution Web sites

40

(90.90)

SDI

21

(47.73)

Document delivery

4

(9.09)

E-journal collections

42

(95.45)

Individual e-journals (outside collections)

40

(90.90)

Local EIS

39

(88.64)

Search engines

37

(84.09)

Other Web EIS

39

(88.64)

Table 7.3: Numbers of HEIs linking to selected EIS

 

EIS

Numbers (minimum and maximum) of resources linked

Mean

JISC negotiated services

1

9

4

Databases via Web

1

100

19

Data sets

1

18

3

Text archives

1

16

3

Gateways

1

114

18

OPACs (other institutions)

1

166

8

Other institutional Web sites

1

949

64

SDI

1

11

2

Document delivery

1

1

1

E-journal collections

1

12

6

Individual e-journals (outside collections)

4

925

93

Local EIS

1

211

37

Search engines

1

60

11

Other Web EIS

4

1352

81

Table 7.4: Minimum, maximum and mean numbers of EIS linked from HEI sites

 

Forty (88.89%) of the sites surveyed offer links to JISC-mediated services such as MIMAS, BIDS or Web of Science while four apparently did not do so. Table 7.5 shows how the services compare in popularity although clearly this picture will change as BIDS is phased out.

 

JISC-mediated EIS

Number and percentage of sites with links

n=40

BIDS

37

(92.50)

EDINA

31

(77.50)

Web of Science

25

(62.50)

OCLC FirstSearch

15

(37.50)

NISS

16

(40.00)

MIMAS

15

(37.50)

Table 7.5: Use of JISC negotiated EIS

 

It is not always clear from the HEI Web site descriptions whether a database is Web-based, available locally or available through a JISC mediated service. There is, as has been noted above, also scope for confusion (not only by researchers but also in the way they are represented on the Web site) between databases and electronic journal collections or, indeed, databases and other kinds of electronic resource on the Web. Typical databases accessed directly on the Web include Index to Theses, CAROL, EDGAR, CORDIS and ERIC. In Strand A only 9.31% of all respondents (11.99% of e-mail respondents and 1.12% of interviewees) suggested that they use Web databases to answer their chosen critical incident and only 7.64% (7.01%/9.55%) acknowledged general use of Web databases. This contrasts with 15.69% (critical incident) and 27.64% (general use) who use local resources, generally identified as CD-ROMs in discussions. The Web site survey showed that 39 of the 44 sites link to local resources with a mean number of 37 resources per site. This is a higher mean figure than that for Web databases but represents 4 fewer sites.

It should be noted that local resources may be both networked and physically issued and in most cases both are represented on the site; the latter may also be visible at the issue counter and, as tangible resources, more popular and more easily related to in questionnaires and discussions. Table 7.6 shows the division between networked and physical local resources.

A potentially useful resource featuring on 95.45% of the Web sites visited is the subject gateway. Our definition (see Appendix 1) defines "Hubs and existing subject gateways (not limited to eLib initiatives)" as "Web sites that exist solely to guide users to a selection of quality controlled resources in a limited subject area such as medicine or engineering. Resources included are usually abstracted and may be rated. Sites that do not meet their specific, defined criteria are not included." Our hypothesis was that the majority of gateways would be eLib resource discovery initiatives and accordingly this was one of the three EIS designated for a detailed examination with a listing of resources found. In practice, many other gateways were listed on sites although it was not always apparent whether or not they met our strict definition in supplying a quality-controlled environment. Forty-two (95.45%) of the sites examined included links to gateways with a mean of 18 per site but as many as 114 in one case. Table 7.7 shows how specific eLib and other gateways featured. Strand A respondents to questionnaires and interviewees rarely used gateways: only 0.18% of the questionnaire respondents and 1.12% of the interviewees (total = 0.42%) used a gateway in response to their critical incident, while a total of 3.75% included them on their lists of resources used from time to time (questionnaire: 0.74% / interviewees 12.92%).

 

HEI site codes

Networked local resource

Issued local resource

11

No distinction (28)

12

No distinction (8)

13

No distinction (211)

14

0

114

15

22

19

16

No distinction (92)

18

13

22

19

32

13

20

No distinction (88)

21

9

0

22

26

18

24

30

10

26

0

134

27

No distinction (93)

33

No distinction (42)

34

No distinction (43)

35

32

50

36

1

0

40

38

15

41

17

31

42

5

22

43

31

0

44

12

50

45

32

1

46

No distinction (13)

47

53

16

48

46

0

49

11

14

50

8

11

51

5

30

52

18

9

53

23

25

54

49

85

55

23

34

56

3

6

57

6

3

58

73

80

59

-

66

60

10

4

Table 7.6: Numbers of networked and non-networked local EIS

 

All of the sites visited linked to their own OPAC – sometimes from more than one place on the site – and 42 (95.45%) linked to other OPACs. These were usually local libraries, other local HEI libraries and union catalogues or ‘clumps’ such as COPAC. Table 7.8 shows how HEI information Web sites linked to OPACs of other institutions. Again, this would seem to be a largely underused facility given that only 1.94% of all questionnaire respondents and interviewees used a remote OPAC for the critical incident and only 8.33% acknowledged them as a resource they might use (although surprisingly 1.69% noted remote OPACs as a resource they could not manage without). Against this, 20.97% and 27.22% make use of the institution’s OPAC.

 

Gateway

Number and percentage of sites with links

n=44

RDN (general link)

3

(6.82)

ADAM

23

(52.27)

Biz/Ed

24

(54.55)

EEVL

28

(63.64)

HUMBUL

21

(47.73)

OMNI

30

(68.18)

RUDI

7

(15.91)

SOSIG

32

(72.73)

Pinakes

14

(31.82)

EELS

11

(25.00)

WWW Virtual Library Sites

11

(25.00)

Voice of the Shuttle

18

(40.91)

Other non-eLib gateways

40

(90.91)

Table 7.7: Links to eLib and other gateways

 

 

OPAC

Number and percentage of sites with links

n=35

British Library (OPAC97)

32

(91.43)

COPAC

31

(88.57)

Library of Congress

22

(62.86)

Other National Libraries

14

(40.00)

Local Libraries

11

(31.43)

M25 Consortium

3

(8.57)

Remote lists/gateways to OPACs

14

(40.00)

Table 7.8: Links to OPACs (n=35 – 7 sites numbers recorded only)

 

The use of electronic journals is currently raising management issues, perhaps more than for any other electronic resource; some of which have been addressed by JISC projects. These issues are linked to copyright, licensing and access and are to some extent met by making available collections of titles such as those provided by Ingenta, IDEAL or CatchWord. As mentioned above, the examination of HEI Web sites to determine the sources of electronic journal titles was often an arduous and time consuming task involving a study of each of up to 1,500 URLs. Forty (90.91%) of the Web sites analysed made links to individual journals and 42 (95.45%) to collections. Numbers of individual titles ranged from 4 to 925 (mean = 93); these figure includes titles such as Program (Aslib), British Medical Journal, Times Higher Education Supplement and various newspapers (both national and international).

The numbers of electronic journal collections varied from 1 to 12 with a mean of 6. Services used also included those provided by professional bodies (e.g. Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry) and University presses (e.g. Cambridge UP, Oxford UP) although for the purposes of this survey these were not included as collections and titles were counted individually. The project recorded at least 50% of the HEI sites using these collections.

We would hypothesise that the high numbers of collections may be necessary in order to include electronic access to all print journals in the physical collection. The need to subscribe to so many services to gain comprehensive access must be a major budget determinant.

Table 7.9 shows the use of the various services by the 42 HEIs. Ingenta have captured a high market share and despite their relatively late entry into the field have an equal share with Academic’s IDEAL service; Elsevier and the newly combined Swets-Blackwell service come equal fourth after MCB University Press’ Emerald and Anbar services.

 

E-journal service

Number and percentage of sites with links

n=42

Academic IDEAL

32

(76.19)

CatchWord

18

(42.86)

EBSCO

12

(28.57)

Elsevier Science@Direct

22

(52.38)

HighWire

6

(14.29)

Ingenta

32

(76.19)

JSTOR

14

(33.33)

Kluwer

4

(9.52)

MCB Emerald/Anbar

26

(61.90)

NESLI

6

(14.29)

OCLC ECO

7

(16.67)

Springer Link

14

(33.33)

SuperJournal

2

(4.76)

Swets/Blackwells

22

(52.38)

Wiley

16

(38.09)

Table 7.9: Use of e-journal collections by HEIs (Swets and Blackwells given as combined figure.)

 

Relatively little use is made of electronic journals as evidenced by their use in the critical incidents (Strand A): 2.78% respondents used collections and 2.08% used individual journals. The second, more general question on resources used from time to time discovered 7.36% collection use and 7.50% use of individual titles. In all cases, transcripts with their more probing questioning produced higher figures; in the case of the second of the two questions, significantly so (21.35% and 24.16% against 2.77% and 2.03%). In terms of use, little significance should be attributed to the distinction between use of collections and use of individual titles as often it was impossible to tell (particularly in the questionnaire analysis) from which source the journal used had come.

 

7.5 Purchasing intentions: results

Planning was (unsurprisingly) beset by huge uncertainties for the librarians interviewed. Electronic information services are seen as providing benefits for students and staff (LIS and academic staff) but planning is constrained by structural changes within the organisation (e.g. convergence, merging of institutions), resource constraints, and the complications of negotiating licensing arrangements. This section deals first with the uncertainties (Section 7.5.1), the management issues concerned with structures and staffing (Section 7.5.2), views on licensing (Section 7.5.3) and some of the factors behind approaches to Web site development and the promotion of EIS (Section 7.5.4).

 

7.5.1 Uncertainties in managing and developing EIS

HEI library and information services are caught up in government agendas for greater participation in higher education and are acutely aware of the implications for service delivery.

‘the other university agendas are about, again in common with others, widening participation, which in our case again means perhaps more part-time students, different patterns of attendance and a greater outreach into the region, greater dispersal and so more and more time spent away from the campus. And that makes it more important to provide electronic information, but makes it more difficult to manage the delivery’ [28401, from text units 20-23]

The league tables for university performance in research and the Subject Reviews (TQA assessment) for teaching performance also create pressures.

‘and the other thing for us, we are striving to maintain the very high status we have in terms of research and teaching institution...getting it is one thing, maintaining it is another...it means everyone is pushed to their limits and that we are expected to deliver excellent resources and the library is part of that’ [34401, from text units 15-49]

Resource constraints and the variation in publishers’ models for electronic journal provision are at the root of many uncertainties in planning. Long-term planning has given way for some to a ‘win some, lose some’ attitude to the new opportunities that arise.

‘The problem we’ve had recently has all been in the cost area and the fact that these deals have come through thick and fast without, necessarily, an awful lot of warning and it’s just the sheer problem of budgeting for them... and then the deals are often tied in with the question of non-cancellation clauses and things like that. So there are lots of issues around budgeting and the costs.’ [20401, from text units 42-64]

‘our approach has been opportunistic in a sense that, and I can’t see that it can be anything other, if a good deal is offered, we take it... the principle of the deal, I suppose has been, perhaps because we’re unprincipled, has become less important. Let me give you a ...for instance on the [publisher name] deal that was and is an incredibly more favourable deal for small institutions than it is for big ones...Now for that, that to us is an opportunity so good that we couldn’t turn it down’ [18401, from text unit paragraphs 37-38]

‘if you’re getting licences that are going to take over the next three years, five years, whatever, you’re tying yourself in... so the money side of things is a problem but it hasn’t stopped us going ahead [22401, from text unit paragraphs 13-14]...you can’t ignore the value for money deals.. you just feel all the time that you’re treading a very precarious line’. [22401, from text unit paragraphs 21-22]

‘We are constantly sitting back and trying to look at where we’ve got so far...whether we’re doing it the right way, changing it a bit...we’re learning as we’re going along and it’s very difficult to see into the future.’ [22401 from text unit paragraphs 40-41]

‘I suppose the crucial issue is the very difficult one of the relationship between electronic publishing and conventional publishing and the issues that arise from that in terms of the affording of electronic versions of scholarly materials, and I think we’re still seeing new models proposed for that relationship...So I think the pattern of scholarly communication is important’ [18401 from text unit paragraphs 8-9]

Problems sometimes occur when newly formed collaborative local arrangements could be jeopardised by subsequently better HEI deals.

‘We have made some joint purchases or joint subscriptions within [name of collaboration]...we started doing that really before there were so many HE deals and then it was easier but now very often people say we won’t talk to a consortium because we’re currently negotiating with whatever interest...JISC or somebody...very often if you’re not careful you can get caught in a trap whereby you do a consortial deal and then suddenly a few months down the line there’s a wider HE deal that’s actually more beneficial, so you’ve got to be very careful about not getting your fingers burnt’ [22401 from text unit paragraphs 23-24]

7.5.2 Managing organisational changes in structure and staffing

For some institutions the convergence advocated by the Follett report (1993) was accompanied by reductions in staff numbers (‘downsizing’), and there are variations in the degree to which converged information services are truly ‘converged’. Models of convergence are often adapted to local circumstances and a contingent approach is often adopted (Reid and Foster, 2000). Scrutiny of the transcripts would support Reid's thesis based on the TAPin project

‘the staffing changes that we made...the fundamental one was that we completely restructured LIS when it was just the library service back in ’94/95, that was in response to an enforced downsizing...we had to take roughly 22% out of the staffing budget and it had to be the staffing budget...Since then the main change has been the integration of academic computing services with LIS but that hasn’t been as fundamental as I would have hoped ...the systems teams are still separate...ideally you would want to see users’ support system teams integrated into the school teams and only a very small core of people supporting the central infrastructure...but we haven’t been able to achieve that largely because they were cut back massively in ’96 before they merged with us...most of the user support people went then so we haven’t got any user support people to integrate in.’ [11401 from text unit paragraphs 19-20]

‘Staffing budgets are just constantly being held down. We can demonstrate greater demand across a whole range of services but there is no money for staffing, so we have to manage it within existing levels’. [28401 from text unit paragraphs 36-37]

‘I think the main difficulty is that we have staff in the wrong place now...we have a lot of departmental libraries and as the electronic services are more and more used, they (staff) should be somewhere where they can help with the electronic services more. We need to rearrange the staffing which is never simple’. [17401 from text unit paragraphs 18-19]

‘As regards this particular institution, to plan effectively, there is a difficulty...we’re not a converged service so we are always relying on colleagues within Information Systems, who are separately managed, to do things for us. Our Information Systems is not only separate from the Library but a lot of it is devolved to the Faculty, so we’re constantly having to liaise with different people which makes it very difficult to plan and to make sure that we’re providing an even service across the library system’ [22401 from text unit paragraphs 13-14]

‘We’re quite small, in the fourth division of higher education here in terms of money and provision...and problems of staffing – we’ve only 6 professional staff. Finding time to examine all the initiatives, untangling routes and options to make sense of it all. Generally we’ve aimed at providing access to titles where we get print copies and electronic access is free’ [30401 from text units 99-106]

In some cases, provision and management of electronic information services has helped to speed up changes that were planned in any case, although plans are not always realised, and adjustments are required constantly.

‘well, this has coincided with us reviewing and changing, quite radically, our Technical Processes Division which deals with journal receipt and all that sort of thing...so for the first time, we’ve got a Serials Librarian...We’ve also set up faculty teams who liaise with the faculties of course and they’re the sort of people who sort the new electronic deals which come along and make recommendations. So we have changed our sort of structure in ways that makes it easier to deal with EIS. This hasn’t been driven purely by the electronic age of course, these changes were long overdue anyway, but they’ve put us in a better position to deal with them’. [20401 from text units 78-95]

‘ ...people who were the middle managers of those sections stayed with us in that they weren’t people who were on short-term contracts but they retained their strategic or library wide responsibility for those areas and helped us move through this transition phase, but they’ve all left now...and so a year ago we were forced to realise that we didn’t have an effective method for managing the three technical services processes within a school team structure so we decided to set up cross team process groups to look at the processes and improve them...so now we’ve got three groups...and library management systems specialist who’s backing up these three areas...So in effect what we’ve got is these three virtual teams replacing the old sectional structure... [11401 from text unit paragraphs 47-48]

‘Well, we’ve been convergent for the past 12 years, but there was a more organisational convergence about 3 years ago. And so there’s been that change, and we work quite closely now, the library and computing, to manage the delivery of services. Within the library we haven’t made as many changes as we probably need to, partly because we haven’t had any vacancies in right sort of places, to be able to move it forward in the way we’d like it to, despite a strong feeling that we need to make an appointment to help us get to grips with electronic journals and better exploit these. And that’s part of our strategy, but we’re having to wait. There’s no money for additional posts..’ [28401 from text unit paragraphs 32-33]

7.5.3 Views on licensing arrangements for EIS

Views on licensing were often trenchant, however, as many respondents referred to a specific journal service, it is not possible to record these here but the third quotation below (11401 from text unit paragraphs 60-61) is indicative of the sentiments expressed. The subject of purchasing models themselves is much wider than can be considered in detail here. The focus of this analysis is the influence of licences on the ways EIS are managed, delivered and promoted to the users. The librarians would like flexibility in their arrangements with publishers to ease the development of the hybrid library and the move of parts of the service to what might be a completely electronic service.

‘I think we would have to try...to look forward to a situation where print and electronic is seen to be much more of a continuum than it is now...that the availability of a journal in print or electronic format...and because we see, I suppose like most people, that journals are moving increasingly towards electronic only delivery we would believe, then the easier the publishers can engage in that type of contract with us, the easier the better really, the quicker the better’ [18401 from text unit paragraphs 45-46]

‘Well we use NESLI and CHEST whenever we can. We prefer bulk deals that don’t limit us on what we can cancel, though you can’t always avoid that, but I think over a few years that will disappear because there’ll be electronic only solutions’ [17401 from text unit paragraphs 24-25]

Intellectual property rights are a concern, particularly when the publishers appear to be putting up prices relentlessly.

‘The publishers may think it can continue just by moving everything to electronic services and charging us for that as well, but there is a growing ground swell of opinion that authors and institutions ought to retain the intellectual property rights and yes, they can form partnerships with publishers but they shouldn’t hand it over free of charge and then be charged...if publishers then want to go out and sell that in the market then the institutions and the academics would then get royalties and returns back into the institution and I think that would be fair...you’re paying someone to add value to what you’re doing. What we’ve got at the moment is just completely crazy – it’s not economically viable’ [11401 from text unit paragraphs 60-61]

‘I would have thought that there is much less chance of this (page charges for submission and/or publication) than before...From what I see of the signs, academics, well some anyway are aggressively, perhaps a few are wanting to look towards insisting on a share of the copyright when they publish an article in a journal’ [18401 from text unit paragraphs 58-59]

Authentication requirements conflict with the ethos of providing easy access to remote legitimate users and the policy of widening access.

‘IP authentication versus ATHENS, in particular being able to provide access from outside the campus because we are very dispersed as a university and indeed it’s part of our mission to support people all around the region. A lot of our users wish to login from home and use services in that way and we don’t have dial-in facilities. If they’re using an internet service provider then obviously if the service is depending on IP registration then they’re not recognised as being of the university...are they using that information as a student or in whatever capacity of their life (referring to part-time students), we can’t control it, and some of the restriction or licensing conditions make us feel quite uncomfortable’ [28401 from text unit paragraphs 17-18]

‘a lot of those (health students) are learning at a distance...and so we need flexibility in things like licences, we have such difficulty with those licences that won’t let you have access to them from separate sites except at a huge price and that is unrealistic’ [34401 from text units 60-71]

‘..my intention...would be to try and press for the sort of US practice which is walk in access under the licensing arrangements so that we are not having to differentiate, as we do now, between print, who anybody registered as a user – they may not be staff or a student here but who in effect have access rights’ [18401 from text unit paragraphs 26-27]

‘...as an academic library in a big inner city we get a lot of requests for casual access to consult things that aren’t held in the public library...with the electronic stuff it’s much more difficult, a lot of the licences don’t allow it and anyway, to get on to our network you have to have userids and passwords which we don’t give to casual users’ [22401 from text unit paragraphs 40-41]

Simplicity is necessary in view of the extra work involved in checking licensing arrangements and monitoring them.

‘We do take the licensing conditions seriously, and so we do make sure all our subject librarians are aware of what is and isn’t allowed and we try to make sure we are abiding by those conditions. Obviously having a common licensing arrangement like the NESLI one does make lot easier, because you know what you’re getting, so I think the work they’ve done there is useful’ [28401 from text unit paragraphs 57-58]

‘We do look very carefully at site licences, in fact, all licences are put past our legal people in the university who scrutinise them for us but we’re actually the people who decide whether or not we’re going to take them’ [22401 from text unit paragraphs 21-22]

‘Where we get the electronic version something like for free then we’ll make it available. What we’re struggling with at the moment are some of the NESLI deals where you can go for print plus electronic at a premium or you can go for electronic only and deeply discounted print for those titles that you particularly want in print. Because of the concerns about the network access and the access for PCs we’re still looking at the pros and cons of those sort of things’ [28401 from text unit paragraphs 59-60]

Some complications occur when the responsibility about budgeting has been devolved to departments or faculties.

‘we’re getting strong pressure from one of the schools to sign up for it (a publisher’s deal not well favoured) because they don’t want to lose access to the journals they’re currently provided with...if you devolve the budget you can’t always control what happens later even if nominally you are in charge of signing the bills...once you’ve done the genie’s out of the bottle’ [11401 from text unit paragraphs 11-12]

‘We are developing a collection management policy which is actually coming from the faculty teams who are developing information plans for individual departments...so there’s quite a lot of input from the departments themselves and any deals...so that’s the way we go about it – I think it’s got a lot of politics about it...so whether there s pressure from the faculty to renew these things (Science Direct, Academic Press publisher deals) we don’ t want to cut the ground form beneath CURL’ [20401 from text units 183-190]

Subject or publisher-based deals both have advantages and disadvantages.

‘Well, I suppose in some ways they (subject based deals) are easier to handle, for instance if the Institute of Physics makes us an offer on their journal, that’s quite easy to manage so we talk to our Physics department and negotiate whether or not we want to commit money to that. Where we’ve got something like Elsevier Science or Academic Press which cover a panoply of subjects then we discuss it with the right range of departments – so it is more difficult. If that’s the way they are being delivered then that’s the way we have to respond’ [18401 from text unit paragraphs 40-41]

‘...where you get publishers tempting you by saying you have access to all our journals, electronic journals, well 99% of them – it sounds tempting but in fact a large number of those journals wouldn’t be of any interest to our users because they’re not subjects that are taught here. So, sounds nice the publisher-based thing but in fact we’d probably go for a more selective subject-based one’ [20401 from text units 198-202]

‘we can see areas where we’ve got big gaps...I don’t know if it would be of more interest but it would be of interest to see more subject based...but again you’d have to be quite careful of how you defined your subjects otherwise like with the old gateways, it’s fine for the broad old academic subjects but it’s more difficult for the new areas...that’s where I think we’d lose out if we had only subject deals’ [22401 from text unit paragraphs 37-38]

‘Mainly we choose by the research content of the journals...we gave priority to Science Direct because it covers so much material that our people want. And then, they all vary so much, we just assess whether we can afford them and it we think they’re good value.’ [17401 from text unit paragraphs 39-40]

7.5.4 Management and promotion of EIS

Operational management concerns the new roles and responsibilities for staff, and the associated quality assurance and performance measurement issues, particularly those which affect the library and information services but which fall outside their direct remit.

The maintenance of electronic journals brings a new set of tasks.

‘We are considering subscribing to JSTOR, the archival parts...but we would like it to be more manageable from our point of view. Electronic journals, maintaining them on the Web is just a huge task...A common front-end, basically, you know a WebSPIRS front-end with ATHENS authentication would be an ideal solution. And faster bandwidths of course! And the rest!’ [34401 from text units 196-210]

Bundling has its implications for the organisation of seemingly routine tasks such as cataloguing.

‘..we’ve started cataloguing all of our electronic titles individually, then of course if you lose a bundle of titles that’s a huge amount of work you’ve got to undo, when you first take it on it’s a huge amount of work to do...we weighed up the pros and cons of that and decided that if we really wanted people to use these things they’ve got to be able to find them, and the way people naturally find them is by way of a catalogue and while we’ve still got this hybrid library the print sources and so on, that’s probably the way forward so...whatever you do you’re kind of trying to weigh up the advantages, disadvantages, the costs and so on’ [22401 from text unit paragraphs 21-22]

Access to print journals is valued by some Subject Review (TQA assessment) teams.

‘Issues about continuing access to back runs of journals can be a problem. We ran into problems by not having back copies of print journals in the TQA assessment – subject reviews as they’re called now’. [11401 from text unit paragraphs 11-12]

Changes in income are not always easy to predict and resource allocation models have to shift to make the systems fair and transparent. There are many differences between institutions on charging models for copying and printing.

‘Now when the readers are doing things electronically and students are printing and paying for that print-out, we are not necessarily getting that money back, they go to the Computing Service or the department’s printer or the department that looks after the printer, so there are implications there because our photocopying fees buy quite a lot of books’ [34401 from text units 217-223]

‘Full-text is favourite. When we introduced charging from our electronic resources the numbers of printing did go down...I’m not sure that that’s a detrimental thing because one got the impression that if it was printed out the student felt, almost by osmosis, they’d learnt something really. Now the ones who pay for a printout...actually do want it as a learning tool rather than an activity in itself...and the price is a mirroring of what we charge for their word processing or whatever’ [14401 from text unit paragraphs 40-41]

‘..with photocopying, photocopying has gone down marginally...because we’ve got this slightly bizarre set up with Information Systems.. in this library (our biggest) all the money from printing and photocopying comes back into the same pockets...in our site it’s slightly different...the money from printing goes to the faculty because of the way we’ve got it set up’ [14401 from text unit paragraphs 43-44]

‘Printing implications are horrendous. In the library...some e-journals are available institution wide, students print using their passwords and have to pay; some are available only in the library. I’m opposed to charging for printing in the library’. [30401 from text units 184-188]

Performance evaluation is not easy in this situation, and usage statistics vary in their usefulness. The evaluation of the digital library may require different methodological approaches.

‘...and what we found from the use of Science Direct which gives very detailed statistics is that there is a lot of use of things where we’ve got electronic only and we would never have picked from doing selection title by title.’ [17401 from text unit paragraphs 18-19]

‘The other thing with these electronic journals particularly all of those bundles, because things are changing so rapidly it’s very difficult to say how many you have with say the external subject reviews, they want a lot in hard data...how many books do you have, how much do you spend, how many journals do you have...it’s getting very difficult to provide that kind of information because whatever you think you’ve got one day, the following week is very different’ [22401 from text unit paragraphs 40-41]

‘We’ve always had very heavy used of electronic services by undergraduates and postgraduates, but with academic staff we get feedback through liaison, through formal school boards and committees where we have them and so on. There are particular problems, as far as we know they’re happy with what they’re getting, would like more of it, recognise the resource constraints, but we haven’t done any formal survey. Probably we will use the LIBRA survey methodology given that we’ve done undergraduates and full-time postgraduates’ [11401, from text unit paragraphs 57-58]

‘So I think we would recognise that we have to be more investigative in the way we get feedback from users. We have our usual user groups, focus groups and all this kind of stuff...but on the whole this issue (EIS) doesn’t come out as a burning issue actually...maybe that’s because people are just overwhelmed with all this stuff that we provide...maybe people just take it a second nature...’ [18401 from text unit paragraphs 51-52]

‘We get some statistics but that’s a bit patchy and seems to be dependent on how free the publisher is in providing this. Otherwise it’s feedback from the faculty teams but I think we’re increasingly surveying our users’ [20401 from text units 251-253]

‘I do feel that management information is very shaky...we get some stuff from [name of collaboration], we get some stuff via the web, stuff that we’re providing from our central CD-ROM network but it’s very difficult trying to interpret those statistics and to, again, work out what they mean in terms of...you know if you have to make cuts, where you can reasonably make them’ [22401 from text units 23-24]

‘Could monitor data from suppliers, titles hit and displayed and work out which ones we need and which are peripheral...While we don’t pay it’s not really an issue. If we pay extra then it’s very much of an issue...’ [30401 from text units 174-179]

One significant finding of this study supports earlier work that showed a lack of coherent collection development policies and strategies for electronic resources (Armstrong and Lonsdale, 1998). A number of the libraries investigated so indicated and that collection development strategies and procedures are beginning to evolve.

‘Well for some time we did have a checklist of parameters on which to look at for a deal...it was resurrected a couple of years ago and it was changed but I’m not absolutely sure it’s still being used...It’s up to the Information Specialists to make the judgement either individually or collectively – the parameter checklist would help in that – they would need to liaise with schools to find out what they think about it. There’s no formal collection development strategy...I don’t think there can be one’ [11401 from text unit paragraphs 38-39]

‘It’s like anything isn’t it...at the end of the day you are balancing a budget against the stuff you want to buy. As for a formal collection development strategy, we do have a collection development policy but it was actually written a little while ago and in fact the world has changed so much but what we have done in respect of electronic journals this year...we’ve been looking very carefully at coverage and where we’ve got gaps...’ [22401 from text unit paragraphs 32-33]

‘We do, actually, have a formal collection development strategy and is specific terms about NESLI, I guess we have to be opportunistic’ [17401 from text unit paragraphs 37-38]

Promotion of services remains a problem for some institutions. Web site development has proceeded in different ways, and the management structure can be problematic, though the benefits of converged services are possible for some. It is also important to remember that some institutions are still developing their LIS Web sites.

‘...what staggers me is although we feel we’re trying to promote these electronic resources...there are clearly a number of people who are not aware of what is there...we stick up posters and do information skills sessions or user education, whatever you call it, until we are blue in the face, well that’s what it feels like...we do a lot of help sheets, we promote things through websites, we try and find as many different ways as we can...we know there’s a really big audience out there who really haven’t got to grips with it...you’ve got the whole spectrum , you’ve got people at one end who use everything and get an awful lot out of it, you’ve got people at the other end who literally haven’t touched them and this broad band in the middle who range from the top end to the bottom end’ [22401 from text units 48-49]

‘I think the complexity and the patchwork of provision...which has to be the major difficulty that we have as marketers, providers and negotiators of content trying to provide some navigable map of this stuff and I think that is increasingly difficult...I don’t know if that’s a truism but everybody uses the web more or less now and in as much as you can provide something which looks like a common interface...it seems people adapt to that very easily...so I don’t see too many problems in the question of use but I do with the issue of trying to understand behaviour’ [18401 from text unit paragraphs 5-6]

‘So we try to get people together to look at the information that we feel needs to be made available and then to agree on structure and style. That in itself is proving quite difficult because trying to get a view across four campuses...there are sometimes differences in opinion about how you should present the information’ [28401 from text unit paragraphs 42-43]

‘The LIS site, with difficulty is the comment I can give for that one! We’ve been struggling with this bit because we had a set of library pages which were developed by someone who got interested in this, and he’s now the university web weaver, but he developed those pages some time back now, before we integrated with academic computing services...If you drill down it gets better but the way it’s presented is abysmal...There’s a current debate going on the way in which the over-arching university web site look and how the school pages integrate into that. There’s no consistent policy on that at the moment and that is being developed as part of our overall information and communication strategy...but that is being developed under the leadership of the Director of Marketing & Communication but the Web Weaver post which is situated within IS is supposed to be the resource supporting that’ [11401 from text unit paragraphs 25-29]

‘There is a steering group...was to look after the college web pages and we used to have to go through them but they trust us now to do our own web pages under staff development. We like being on our own for that’ [14401 from text unit paragraphs 19-20]

‘I want the library catalogue to become the key access route to Internet resources. I want to expand the library web pages, there are already a lot of links, not expand that but increase the interactivity e.g. forms...I’d like to put all our documentation there...’ [30401 from text units 64-69]

‘Well as it happens we run the university web site as well...the web site is managed by ...well we have two job shares in a ways where one of my IT staff and one of my library staff do a double header on it really...predictably the librarian who half of our web management team maintains the pages and pointers and all the other things that make up the content map of our resources...That’s handled rather smoothly and unproblematically here and that person...is highly skilled in authoring...In a sense one of the benefits of convergence is we can integrate these kind of things together...and the computer people begin to understand some of the taxonomic issues and vice versa the librarians start to understand some of the technical issues’ [18401 from text unit paragraphs 221-22]

‘Glancing through the questions I blush in shame. The library does not have a web site, we don’t subscribe to electronic journals. There don’t seem to be many on [name of specialist are]. [31401 from text unit paragraphs 3-5]

There is perhaps a certain irony in the concern expressed above to develop Web sites as a strategic means of access to EIS and as a promotional tool. The findings of Strand A suggest that a very low percentage of respondents make use of HEI Web sites as a means of accessing EISs. Only 11.11% of all respondents regularly access their own HEI Web site and a mere 3.89% used the Web site for the critical incident search.

 

7.6 Methodological recommendations

7.6.1 Web survey

The JISC call required "a survey of resource access provided by individual HEIs" however, apart from highlighting several surprisingly high figures for resources on HEI Web sites (individual electronic journals, informational and institutional Web sites, remote OPACs and gateways), the survey in this form was not very informative.

For future cycles, the team believes that a survey should go beyond a mere count of links. An examination of the structure and content layout, together with listings of some areas such as gateways or JISC/CHEST resources, of typical HEI information service Web sites, would be more informative. This issue is perhaps more clearly understood from the following examples.

As a first case, most (not here quantified by the Strand C survey) sites offer quite lengthy hierarchical subject trees as well as more general pages. It would be more useful to quantify the amount and degree of subject tree development as the Strand A interviews and questionnaires show that very little use was made of this kind of resource; a resource that must have been labour- and time-intensive to complete and presumably remains a significant drain on time to maintain.

A second example concerns subject gateways and the possible links from HEI departmental web pages to those of the library (particularly to the subject trees) and vice versa. It would be instructive to determine how often the gateway function was duplicated (with either the same or different links) and how often one gateway simply pointed to, and used, the other.

 

7.6.2 Purchasing Interviews

The team felt that the survey instrument was satisfactory and that it could be used, with minor alterations to reflect current concerns, in the second cycle. During the interviews senior librarians noted that they had found the survey instrument and the interview a useful catalyst to reflect on current issues and problems.


Back

This page last updated 25 August 2000 10:03:19
Research Pages maintained by Chris Armstrong