Summary

The first speaker was Sir Brian Follett, a summary of whose talk has been e-mailed to lis-sconul.

Questions and answers (Sir Brian Follett’s talk)

Q: Evidence suggests that significant institutional change depends on (a) significant incentives (b) compelling regulatory frameworks (c) coherent national policy (d) professional drive. Are these not lacking?

A:
(a) financial incentives essential
(c) agree up to a point
(d) true in a negative sense, in that library professionals could obstruct change.

Q: The aims of our regional library cooperative, on set-up, included periodicals purchasing, arranging reciprocal access for researchers, and cooperative storage. The sharing of electronic resources is a more realistic aim, but isn’t it better arranged at UK level?

A: Certainly. What role will librarians have if that happens indefinitely on a large scale? They will be needed to identify the best quality information for their users.

Q: In some provincial universities, the most exciting partnerships are not wholly with other HE institutions, but include (for example) the NHS.

A:Agree. The Natural History Museum, for example, owns many unique titles.

Q: Doesn’t joint HE/NHS procurement require very firm pressure for collaboration at very high level?

A: Certainly. The NHS tends to operate very independently. The ‘journal crisis’, by the way, cannot be laid at the door of commercial publishers alone. Most of the wealth of large learned societies is from their journals.

Comment: Beware of thinking you save 50% of subscription costs if you halve the number of your subscriptions: publishers can adjust the price

A: Indeed. I’m not optimistic about influencing journal prices. They are a marginal cost to research.

Q: Is a UK national catalogue a priority?

A: Yes but that alone would be a poor outcome of our report. On the other hand it could be imperfect yet very useful.

Q: Would it be helpful to have a whole set of proposals badged as one concept?

A: Agreed. The UK has a good record of library collaboration. Not much of a push would turn the wheel quite fast.

Comment: It would be useful to the British Library to have a recognised forum for discussing these issues.

The second speaker was Professor Colin Harris. (Barriers to resource sharing in HE libraries)

Professor Harris explained that he was one of the researchers of a study into barriers to resource sharing in HE libraries, ‘resources’ defined as the use and development of space, collections, staff and technology. The study also took the following definitions: resource sharing (explicit sharing of one such resource between two or more libraries); and deep resource sharing (sharing in which institutional autonomy is in some degree surrendered and which involves some degree of risk). [This differs from the definition used by Derek Law who first noted the concept: the treatment and management as a single collection of more than one collection in more than one institution.]

The study found numerous examples of collaboration in inter-library loans, document delivery, sharing bibliographic records, and access for library users; also modest amounts of resource sharing; but virtually no examples, anywhere in the world, of deep resource sharing. The study identified the following reasons for eschewing deep resource sharing: reluctance to give up ownership of material, to take up risks or to compromise on specifications and standards; fear of ‘being swamped’; lack of imagination and professional leadership.

Reluctance to take risks was evident in the demand for more money (rather than the diversion of existing money) for deep resource sharing. The lack of professional leadership could be seen in the reactive stance of librarians who did not recognise their mission to use their professional knowledge to innovate. Resource-sharing so far has been risk-free, incremental, bottom-up, hence modest.

In effect we have a distributed national collection but no map or guide to it. Librarians know of the pressures for collaboration, but

• almost all HEI libraries have a strong internal focus (institutionally)
• library provision, at 3.3% of the total budget, is not a key issue for institutions
• no evidence is available for a strong case to be made to HEIs.

On the contrary (apparently)

• QAA finds library provision satisfactory or better
• RAE performance is better than ever despite the pressure on libraries.

Although sound arguments can be made for

• more flexible licensing of electronic material across HEIs
• shared digitisation
• shared digital archiving,

obstacles include

• the question whether librarians (as against their institutions) have the legal standing to negotiate contracts and service level agreements necessary for deep resource sharing
• caution on the part of HEI managers
• possible perceptions of freeloading during the drive to widen participation (300,000 new library users)

Comment: Figures from UK Libraries Plus are evidence to counteract the fear of being swamped.

Q: Would it be helpful if librarians were employed by the funding councils rather than by HEIs?

Comment: That is effectively the situation in France, where librarians have very little influence within their institution.

Q: Is the solution top-down or bottom-up?

A: Some degree of top-down direction is necessary.

Q: Does it help to have an information supremo on the institution’s senior management team?

A: No evidence.

Q: Are big libraries better (as implied by comparisons with the US)?

A: It’s more a question of the effectiveness of information delivery.

The third speaker was Professor Derek Law. (GAELS: a case study in co-operation)

Professor Law described the GAELS project (Glasgow Allied Electronically with Strathclyde) which was one of the local schemes studied by Professor Harris’s team. About five years old, it provides joint access, for engineering staff and students of the two universities, to electronic information services and information skills modules. The focus on engineering derived from the large size of the two departments and the support of the two Deans. The aim was to afford one excellent collection instead of two mediocre ones. The overlap in journal provision of £80,000 provided money for additional services such as fast document delivery.

Difficulties in implementing the scheme included:

• the fact that it saved no cash, so was not accorded high priority
• institutional views of the library as a huge investment not lightly to be given away
• the inherent selfishness of the academic researcher
• power structures which, though neutral in themselves, provided obstruction simply by being different in each institution.

Q: What radical changes are needed?

A: Directors of information should be able to contract with suppliers outside the institution.

Q: Must we wait until the growth and currency of electronic collections make printed collections less important?

A: Yes, primary electronic collections are the answer.

Comment: Competition between universities has had its advantages. Unwise to abolish it merely to allow sharing of library collections.

Comment: Most hopeful scenario a nationally-provided electronic collection that all institutions can buy into.

The final speaker was Professor Mike Thorne, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East London

Professor Thorne said he would take three themes (1) rebranding education (2) the threats from the private sector (3) information technology.

On rebranding collection he deplored the £90M Public/Private Partnership in Glasgow which was demolishing Victorian school buildings and replacing them with more modern replicas. Children want a different ‘look’ to schools – the Virgin Megastore style – even if the process within is unchanged. Examples: Stratford schools, the Bromley-by-Bow Health Centre, and the Tower Hamlets Ideas stores (libraries and adult education centres redesigned by the firm that worked for Orange). In Hong Kong the University reluctantly allowed the development of its ‘SPACE’ (School of Professional and Continuing Education) which now has 110k students (compared with the parent institution’s 20k) offering degrees from many universities worldwide and operating from locations above underground stations.

On the threats from the private sector Professor Thorne drew attention to the US system which is ruthlessly designed for school-leavers, allowing private providers to step in for adult learners. The biggest player, the Apollo Group, has an arm called IPD which is hugely successful financially and has a 98% retention rate through personal telephone contact with students (for example). Regents College in the US is the largest (private) provider of degree-level nursing education yet employs no full-time teachers. It matches students’ existing qualifications to the entry and course requirements of other providers.

On IT and learning Professor Thorne said that the UK Government has realised that the investment in on-line learning is not delivering well. That is because computers do not control the process well. On the other hand students love the internet and it seems that 50% spend 3 hours a day on-line. Learners actually want a lack of intermediation. The more a learning package looks like the web the more they will like it. There is a widening gap between the behaviour of students and the IT-competence of university teachers. Professor Thorne’s personal view was that learners will nevertheless negotiate their way into a face-to-face learning situation if they can – but he has no evidence.

Final discussion

Comment: Despite the human and cultural difficulties, it would be good to be seen to get our act together.

Comment: The complex map of collaborative arrangements is difficult to understand, even for a professional.

Comment: If we look at all the disparate schemes we can find the common elements and introduce those as a UK-wide scheme.

Comment: We are well advanced on this. SCONUL Vacation access scheme and Access scheme for researchers already exist. Borrowing for Distance learners is growing towards universal coverage through UK Libraries Plus. Can we not complete the picture by piloting that in the ‘risky’ metropolitan areas?

Comment: Can we not just decide, instead of hesitating about the ‘risky’ areas?

Comment: It is a small step from regional schemes to a national scheme. Probably no undergraduate has no access to another library.

Comment: Not enough is known about the growing importance of cross-domain collaboration. SCONUL could gather and share this information.

Comment: Further areas for ‘shallow’ resource sharing include procurement, staff training, and document supply.

Comment: On the rationalisation of collections and the establishment of electronic collections major encouragement from the RSLG is needed.

Comment: And the British Library must be involved.