Executive Summary
1 Introduction and Terms of Reference
2 Higher Education Library Collaboration: Context, Concepts and Current Concerns
3 A Summary of Current Joint Working in UK Higher Education Libraries
4 User and Disciplinary Influences on Collaboration and Resource Sharing
5 The Boston Experience and Other Relevant International Developments
6 Barriers to Resource Sharing in the Key Library Operations
7 Conclusions and Summary of Recommendations
Annex A: Bibliography
Separate Technical Appendix (Confidential):
Reports of Three Case Studies and Four Area Visits Vol II
1 In July 2001 the Research Support Libraries Programme (RSLP) commissioned the Higher Education Consultancy Group and CHEMS Consulting to undertake a study on "barriers to resource sharing in libraries, with particular reference to libraries in higher education institutions" (HEIs). The specific concern of the RSLP was to investigate "the notion of deep resource sharing" and the barriers which contributed to a perceived lack of activity in this area. The study was to include - but not be limited to - exploring "the attitudinal, organisational and legal barriers to co-operation". The primary data sources were visits to seven city and metropolitan areas as specified by the RSLP, and one US area (Boston). These were supplemented by a number of surveys and reviews of relevant studies and information sources.
2 UK libraries have always cooperated with each other, and within higher education multiple mechanisms have existed for many years to aid service provision; for example, document supply through inter-library lending, shared bibliographic records, locally agreed access arrangements, and so on. More recently, initiatives such as e-Lib, and the development of the DNER have encouraged further joint activity.
3 Pressure for enhanced collaboration on library and information services has increased for reasons which include: the general recognition - recently articulated by the Research Support Libraries Group (RSLG) - that the explosion of published knowledge is such that no single library can expect to collect all research materials; rising library costs; and the transforming nature of LIS technology.
4 At a policy level it will be important for the various funding bodies to take account of the national requirements of libraries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We comment in the report on the position in Scotland and Wales, and the policies of the Assembly and Parliament, together with the roles of the respective national libraries, which create a different context from England for considering resource sharing.
5 There is much confusion in the existing literature on the terms used to describe various forms of joint working between libraries. This report concentrates on three terms: 'collaboration' which is used to identify joint working involving a conscious and shared approach to planning, but not necessarily the commitment of any significant resources; 'resource sharing' which is used to imply forms of working with other libraries that, by definition, involve the sharing of resources, but usually without any significant element of risk; and ‘deep resource sharing’ which is taken to mean joint working between libraries in which institutional autonomy in service provision is in some degree surrendered, and which involves some degree of risk.
6 Despite extensive collaborative activity, there appears to be little resource sharing and almost no deep resource sharing within higher education libraries in the UK. Greatest progress towards resource sharing has been made in relation to access. Through the RSLP Access Fund it is possible for academic staff and researchers to gain entry, and through UK Libraries Plus for part time and distance students to gain entry and borrow. In addition other regional and local schemes are in use. There are many examples of undergraduate access, but not of undergraduate borrowing rights. However, access by outside students and non-students to electronic materials is generally severely limited because of licence restrictions imposed by most publishers. It is important to remember that resource sharing through inter-library loans and document supply has been an established part of UK provision for many years, and our visit to Boston made it clear that similar provision through the many US library consortia is regarded by them as one of the prime examples of deep resource sharing in practice.
7 So far as collection sharing is concerned, despite some activity, available data suggests very little success has been achieved to date. The major holding libraries have traditionally been particularly cautious, and few appear willing to 'give up' ownership of material. Even where electronic access to little used material is guaranteed (for example, through JSTOR) many libraries are still reluctant to dispose of print copies. There is, however, considerable informal local action whereby libraries 'take account' of the holdings of others, but without a formal agreement. Other than this, new activity is primarily of three kinds: bilateral agreements (some involving the British Library); a few voluntary subject based arrangements; and short term, project funding (much of it from the RSLP itself). It is too early to say if projects will be able to achieve long term sustainability in resource sharing, but - in general - we would not be confident in the face of some of the barriers reported below.
8 Despite the potential for shared staffing, and the technical and infrastructural collaboration that the metropolitan environment potentially offers, little deep resource sharing appears to exist in these areas. However, numerous consortia have active arrangements for joint staff development, which in some cases (eg CALIM) saves the libraries concerned considerable sums in training costs. Some HEIs are reported to be experimenting with shared 24 hour on-line subject librarian support with universities overseas.
9 In technical services there are a number of possible areas of joint activity, but two are of significant potential importance: purchasing and library management systems. So far as the former is concerned, there are many examples of collaborative activity either between libraries or at an institutional level. The question needs to be asked urgently about the most cost-effective means of providing electronic information resources to HEIs. There is reason to believe, for example, that current national site licence arrangements are dysfunctional and that there may be more cost effective means (for example, by top slicing) of providing at least the core of the ‘UK HE electronic library’. Even though further top slicing is never welcome, there may be strong economic arguments for it in this case.
10 Although intuitively it would seem that there must be potential efficiency in sharing library management systems, in practice there are only a few examples. This is partly because acquiring a new system is expensive and requires much effort and time, and if replacement cycles do not coincide it is most unlikely that a library would bring its procurement decisions forward to fit in with another library’s cycle. In addition, joint operation is seen to restrict a library’s flexibility in deciding its own development priorities, etc.
11 It is possible to discern considerable differences of view between librarians and academic staff users over the benefits of collaborative provision . Both groups value cooperative activities in so far as they support their own activities, and arise naturally from their priorities. Although some research libraries remain cautious about the potential drawbacks of resource sharing in respect of their own collections, the majority of librarians consulted appear to favour greater sharing if appropriately conducted. So far as academic staff and researchers are concerned, it is clear that the different disciplinary based priorities of users create a number of potential barriers to resource sharing: there appear to be very different attitudes and expectations between disciplines to travelling to use other research libraries; the extent to which extensive electronic materials are available has a significant impact upon perceptions of the need for resource sharing; and in some disciplines the need for immediate local access to hard copy research collections is emphasised.
12 Although numerous 'technical' difficulties exist over many aspects of sharing resources in the areas of access, collections, staffing, and so on, most of these are 'second order' issues, and attempting to address them will not be effective unless more fundamental and strategic issues are resolved first.
13 Of these, the primary barrier to greater and deeper resource sharing is that no strong and convincing case for it has been made to HEIs. Such a case (which may result from the work of the RSLG) needs to be both persuasive in its own terms, and also communicated effectively to institutions. Such communication should not only be directed at librarians and heads of information services, but should include vice chancellors. Until this case is made, most institutions are unlikely to address the local and technical barriers to deep resource sharing that exist. The case must be underpinned by persuasive evidence of the benefits that may not yet be to hand. A number of studies, for example relating to the costs and benefits of different forms of deep resource sharing, need to be undertaken.
14 In practice, library provision is not a key issue for most institutions except to ensure a satisfactory level of provision, and SCONUL Annual Library Statistics 1999-2000 show the mean expenditure on library provision as a percentage of institutional expenditure to be 3.3%. As for almost all other aspects of institutional activity, a gradual decline in provision because of operational pressures is likely to be tolerated as a 'fact of life', rather than being the stimulus for action.
15 Despite comparative statistics showing deteriorating trends in UK library funding, in general, the main operational indicators suggest that existing library provision is adequate in most - not all - HEIs. Staff and postgraduate researchers use reciprocal or consortial access arrangements, QAA teaching assessments generally find information provision satisfactory (and sometimes praise it), and scores in the 2001 RAE suggest that research quality is improving despite the pressure on library budgets. In such circumstances it is not unreasonable for some institutions to ask ‘ where is the problem?’ If despite such indicators the view is taken that the quality of UK research is being harmed by inadequate library provision, then the RSLP or HEFCE may wish to commission studies to investigate the actual link in practice between research quality and comprehensive information provision.
16 However, this does not mean that at a national level questions about value for money or the comparative standing of UK libraries with those in other countries are inappropriate. But it does mean that any radical proposals for change articulated on such grounds will not necessarily gain widespread support amongst HEIs and their staff unless very carefully explained.
17 The case for collaboration has been reinforced by concerns over future, primarily electronic, provision, and this was underlined by many HEIs in their consultative responses to both the RSLG and our own study. Most institutions are still coming to terms with the implications of such developments, and, because of the exigencies of contracts with suppliers, have not been in a position to formulate - still less implement - relevant policy on collaboration.
18 Currently, the potential advantages of deep resource sharing are perceived as relatively marginal in relation to mainstream library provision, and most librarians and institutions opt for incremental change where specific advantages are to be gained. In these circumstances, almost all activity is voluntary, risk free, and organised on a bottom up basis. Although this may be appropriate for current activities, such an approach is unable to deal with the more strategic and institutionally sensitive aspects of provision.
19 The position concerning enhancing resource sharing in libraries is not dissimilar to that in current discussions on how to encourage greater institutional collaboration more generally. To achieve the latter it is generally recognised that funding body leadership and resources will be required. The same is true for deep resource sharing in libraries, which we do not think will come about without considerable central encouragement.
20 Studies we have conducted elsewhere for the funding bodies and others suggest that significant institutional change only occurs in relation to central initiatives when at least one - preferably two - of the following conditions apply: significant incentives – including, but not restricted to finance; compelling legal and regulatory frameworks; strong professional and disciplinary drivers; and coherent and broadly accepted national policy. None of these apply presently to enhancing resource sharing in libraries in England, although the different funding and national policies in Scotland and Wales may meet at least one of these conditions.
21 In London, it is difficult to see deep resource sharing taking place without a review of overall library provision. Our initial work on this study confirms the potential opportunity for significant restructuring of HE library provision in London, to meet both the future research and widening participation strategies of HEFCE. This would, of course, also need to take account of the position of the British Library, and the role and operation of the University of London Library. We believe that such a review would be welcome by most libraries and should attempt to assess the commitment of HEIs within London to restructuring and greater collaboration. It should also seek institutional views at vice-chancellor level in order to obtain perspectives on key strategic issues.
22 Any moves towards greater resource sharing in support of research and teaching should take account of Government and funding body policy on widening participation. In the report it is recommended that HEFCE review its existing policies over library provision to support widening participation. Such a review should take into account the fact that in many - not all - HEIs library strategy does not appear to have taken on board changes to institutional mission, in particular commitments to community links and recruiting and retaining new types of widening participation students. It is, for example, possible to find HEIs that claim to be active within their communities, but whose libraries do not permit public access. The review should include consideration of the benefits of the Australian national borrowing scheme. Any new policy of effecting wider access generally may require some scheme of compensation along the lines of the RSLP Access Fund which is widely acknowledged to have encouraged wider use of research collections, and which has strong support for its continuation.
23 Two major 'technical' barriers, which are not 'second order', concern licensing of electronic materials and liability for VAT on inter-institutional charges. Under current arrangements, it is impossible to share electronic resources on any basis other than by aggregating the existing spend. While the restrictions to wider access in the CHEST and NESLI agreements are well documented, little is known about the host of other separately negotiated deals. In the report it is recommended that a survey is commissioned to identify the scale of the barriers to access that are emerging and to develop national solutions. So far as VAT is concerned, the report recommends that the funding bodies and RSLP raise the issue of VAT acting as a deterrent to collaboration with Universities UK and with HM Customs & Excise in their regular discussions, and seek exemption or zero rating for collaborative services in higher education.
24 There is widespread support for the further digitisation of information resources to be shared by the community as a whole. There is a concomitant requirement for further work in digital archiving.
Content: Gill Davenport
Last updated: 20 March 2002