Australian Library Collections Task Force
Looking for Books : A Report on Access to Research Monographs by Academics and Higher Degree Students at Australian University Libraries
Attachments
Introduction
This report has its origins in the establishment in August 1998 of the National Round Table on Access to Overseas Monographs through Australian Libraries. The future and fate of the scholarly monograph have become topics of vigorous international debate among scholars, librarians and publishers (Nardini, 1997; Collier, 1999). Problems involving access to overseas published monographs through Australian libraries were the subject of a paper prepared by the National Academies Forum (Foster and OHare, 1998). The Round Table, intended to address these and other issues, was convened by the National Library and included additional participants representing the National Academies Forum, the Council of Australian University Librarians, the State Libraries, and the CSIRO.
Access to relevant monographs is seen as a matter of high priority for researchers in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Background material circulated by the NLA before the Round Table meeting drew attention to trends in overseas monograph collecting by Australian libraries over the past twenty years, by drawing upon the National Bibliographic Database (NBD). The conclusion was that in the period 1975-1995 there was a steady decline in the percentage of both English and non-English language monographs published overseas acquired by Australian libraries. While not a part of the study, it was suggested that some of the reasons which may have influenced the level of collecting of overseas monographs by Australian libraries could include shifts in the pattern of library acquisition expenditure. Changes in value of the Australian dollar in relation to key foreign currencies and increases in the cost of overseas monographs and serials were also seen as relevant issues, as was a recognition that non-English material is often difficult to source, requiring libraries to deal with small and specialist suppliers in many countries (Overseas, 1998).
Additional background material focused on access to overseas-published monographs in Australia through inter-library lending. Key issues identified included problems in identifying and locating items for inter-library loan (ILL) through the NBD, the need to develop co-operative collection development strategies and to enhance co-operative inter-lending mechanisms, the need to improve user convenience, the desirability of performance standards for quality ILL service delivery and the need to strengthen the skills of ILL staff (Access, 1998). Findings such as these need to be considered in the context of an on-going international debate about the perceived demise of the scholarly monograph, at least in the Humanities (Collier, 1999). The Round Table decided to establish the Australian Library Collections Task Force, to investigate and recommend strategies for improving access to overseas monographs with particular reference to:
- the pattern of monograph use in particular subject areas; and,
- access to foreign language monographs in subject areas where these are important.
This report addresses (a) above, in relation to the subject areas of English and Psychology, and in relation to both Australian and overseas monographs. The Task Force resolved to broaden the scope of its inquiry in this way to ensure as broad an account as possible of monograph usage in the two chosen subject areas. The Task Force further resolved to focus its initial research on the perceptions and experiences of university researchers themselves, rather than on the work and records of librarians. It was felt that such a focus would provide unique insights into the working lives of the nations key researchers and their usage of monograph material.
After some debate, the Task Force agreed to identify English and Psychology as two research disciplines for immediate further analysis. These two disciplines were identified as being central to Humanities and Social Sciences research respectively. The Task Force further agreed that a survey form be developed to elicit information from researchers in all universities in the two identified disciplines. Leon Cantrell from the University of Western Sydney and the NLA offered to take responsibility for the development and implementation of the survey. The following information is a report of the survey process and findings and recommendations that relate to other findings of the Task Force, and to the growing international debate about monograph access and distributed collections.
Method
Survey forms were developed for researchers in both disciplines [see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2]. The forms were identical except for the identification of primary areas of research within the discipline. These areas were chosen in consultation with a range of researchers in both subjects. Respondents were invited to identify their academic rank (from professor to higher degree researcher) and their university as well as their primary area of research (though a significant number of respondents identified multiple primary areas). The next question, adapted from Neville Fletchers earlier survey of researchers in Physics, (Fletcher, 1999) invited respondents to categorise the non-serial research collection of their own university library in relation to their identified research field. Six categories, ranging from a general interest collection to a comprehensive one, were nominated. The final section of the survey allowed respondents to respond as they wished to seven questions relating to access to monographs in their chosen research area.
The production and distribution of the survey forms was Leon Cantrells responsibility. The University of Western Sydney (UWS) provided the necessary support. It was decided to mail survey forms direct to the Head of Department in both English and Psychology in all 38 Australian universities. An accompanying letter [see Attachment 3] described the survey project and sought departmental support for the distribution of the forms. Each form was accompanied by an additional letter [see Attachment 4] addressed to researchers. This letter also described the project and provided additional information about the completion of the survey form. Contact addresses and telephone numbers for both Leon Cantrell and the NLA were provided. It was felt to be important to stress the broad base of the project and the range of institutions involved. No attempt was made to discover which universities actually had departments designated as "English" or "Psychology" on the grounds that any local indecision in identification or naming would be best left to the judgement of the individual institution. Equally, no attempt was made to determine the size of each English or Psychology department. Instead, it was decided to mail 15 copies of both survey forms to each university. A total of 1140 forms was therefore distributed, 570 to assumed researchers in English and the same number to their counterparts in Psychology. A random check of the staff lists of English and Psychology departments in 10 universities suggests that the total number of likely academic staff researchers in English was probably overestimated while in Psychology it was more reasonably approximated. Some departments chose to photocopy additional forms. The total responses received in English were 99. This is a return rate of 17.4% of the total distributed survey forms. Total responses received in Psychology were 175. This is a return rate of 30.7% of the total distributed forms. Not all respondents answered all the questions. Percentages given below are in relation to the total responses received in either discipline.
The collection and collation of the completed survey forms was undertaken by the NLA. UWS met the cost of outward mailing and the NLA provided a reply paid address for returns. Information from completed surveys was entered into spreadsheets that allowed for sorting under each identified item. The NLA also provided facilities to enable data from the spreadsheets to be recorded and analysed.
Results
A. English
A total of 99 responses were received from researchers in 27 universities.
Q1. Academic position
Professor = 14=14.1%
Associate Professor = 12 =12.2%
Senior
Lecturer = 31 =31.3%
Lecturer 23 =24.2%
Higher Degree = 13 = 13.1%
Other = 6 = 6.1%
Q2. University
- ACU 2
- ADE 3
- ANU 4
- BAL 1
- CSU 1
- CUT 3
- ECU 1
- FLI 6
- GRI 4
- JCU 5
- LAT 4
- MEL 2
- MON 2
- MUR 1
- NEW 3
- NSW 5
- QUE 6
- SCU 1
- SYD 16
- TAS 4
- UCA 1
- UCQ 1
- UNE 5
- USQ 3
- UWA 8
- UWS 4
- WOL 3
Q3. Individual name
70 respondents (70.7%) identified themselves.
Q4. Primary areas of research
- Early English language and literature = 11 = 11.1%
- Shakespeare to 18th century = 6 = 6%
- 18th century = 4 = 4%
- 19th century = 8 = 8%
- 20th century = 13 = 13.1%
- Australian English and literature = 45 = 45.4%
- American English and literature = 5 = 5%
- Other literatures in English/postcolonial = 17 = 17.1%
- Drama and theatre = 7 = 7%
- Literary theory/criticism/cultural studies = 27 = 27.2%
- Feminist studies = 17 = 17.1%
- Media/film studies = 13 = 13.1%
- Any other = 23 = 23.2% Areas of primary research identified under the "other" category included the following: creative writing, childrens literature, language and culture, gay and lesbian studies, literacy education, horticultural writing, Irish literature, Asian literature in translation, Aboriginal writing and 15-17th century dance and music.
Note: A number of respondents identified more than one primary area of research.
Q5. Categorise non-serial research collection of own university
- General interest only = 10 = 10.1%
- Appropriate for general public = 3 = 3%
- Undergraduate level only = 30 = 30.3%
- Postgraduate level only = 27 = 27.2%
- Advanced research collection = 28 = 28.2%
- A comprehensive collection = 0 = 0%
Note: One respondent gave no reply to this question.
Q6 (a). Common difficulties in accessing monographs
- No difficulties indicated = 37 = 37.3%
- Inadequate collection in own university = 43 = 43.4%. A number of respondents indicated that their research required more specialised collections than their own. Funding cuts were also cited. A number of respondents at universities in Sydney/Melbourne/Adelaide commented on the advantage of having access to other collections nearby.
- ILL too slow = 9 = 9%
- ILL too expensive = 7 = 7%
- Other difficulties = 6 = 6% The most common other difficulty related to access to information about what was available elsewhere
Note: Some respondents noted more than one difficulty.
Q6 (b). Tools used to find the location of books
Note: A total of 61 different tools were identified including word of mouth, the New York Review of Books, phone contact with booksellers, and footnotes and bibliographies in texts. Many respondents listed more than one tool. The most frequently cited tools were:
- Own universitys on-line catalogue = 30 = 30.3%
- Other online library catalogues = 22 = 22.2%
- The Internet = 20 = 20.2 %
- CD ROM databases = 13 = 13.1%
- Library staff = 10 = 10.1%
- ABN = 10 = 10.1%
- Electronic data bases = 9 = 9%
Q6 (c). Frequency of inter-library loans each year
- 20 + = 14 = 14.1%
- 10-20 = 21 = 21.2%
- 6-10 = 15 = 15.1%
- 2-5 = 19 = 19.2%
- 1-2 = 23 = 23.2%
- Never = 6 = 4%
Note: One respondent gave no reply
Q6 (d). Overseas inter-library loan usage each year
- 20+ = 1 = 1%
- 10-20 = 3 = 3%
- 6-10 = 3 = 3%
- 2-5 = 11 = 11.1%
- 1-2 = 41 = 41.4%
- Never = 39 = 39.4%
Note: One respondent gave no reply
Q6 (e). Australian inter-library loan usage for non-Australian books each year
- 20+ = 10 = 10.1%
- 10-20 = 12 = 12.1%
- 6-10 = 13 = 13.1%
- 2-5 = 21 = 21.2%
- 1-2 = 32 = 32.3%
- Never = 10 = 10.1%
Note: One respondent gave no reply
Q6 (f). How to improve inter-library loan service
- No current problems = 26 = 26.2%
- Reduce cost = 18 = 18.1%
- Improve speed = 10 = 10.1%
- Electronic solutions = 8 = 8%
- Longer loan periods = 4 = 4%
- Other (microfilm, staffing) = 2 = 2%
Note: Not all respondents answered this or the following question
Q6 (g). Other suggestions about improving access to overseas books
35 respondents offered advice in this section. The most common suggestions were:
- Electronic solutions (11 respondents)
- Need to standardise inter-library loan conditions: especially length of loan and renewal possibilities (5 respondents) [Note: This matter is currently being addressed by the National Resource Sharing Working Group]
- A comprehensive national collection through national coordination and specialisation (3 respondents)
- Buy more books (2 respondents)
Additional suggestions included:
- "Id like to know easily where books are located" [Note: This information is currently available through Kinetica, and although end user access to Kinetica is being trialled by some institutions, as yet, many institutions do not intend to provide this access.]
- 24-hour access to online catalogues
- More overseas research funding
- More training for academic staff in accessing electronic information
- Serials more a problem than monographs [Note: This was a more common response from Psychology researchers]
- "The very nature of inter-library loans seems to be becoming redundant in the face of more efficient technology" [sic]
B. Psychology
A total of 175 responses were received from researchers in 33 universities.
Q1. Academic position
- Professor = 16 = 9.1%
- Associate Professor = 24 = 13.7%
- Senior Lecturer = 52 = 29.7%
- Lecturer = 62 = 35.4%
- Higher degree = 9 = 5.1%
- Other =11 = 6.3%
Note: One respondent did not identify an academic position
Q2. University
- ACU 4
- ADE 7
- ANU 5
- BAL 4
- BON 1
- CAN 5
- CSU 3
- CUT 3
- DEA 11
- ECU 6
- FLI 6
- GRI 5
- JCU 1
- LAT 1
- MAC 7
- MEL 7
- MON 13
- MUR 8
- NEW 7
- NSW 6
- QUE 8
- QUT 2
- RMI 4
- SWI 6
- SYD 2
- TAS 4
- UNE 5
- USA 5
- USQ 5
- UWA 5
- UWS 6
- VUT 3
- WOL 8
Note: Two respondents did not identify their university
Q3. Individual name
91 respondents (52%) identified themselves.
Q4. Primary areas of research
- Social psychology = 33 = 18.8%
- Developmental psychology = 22 = 12.5%
- Individual differences = 13 = 7.4%
- Abnormal psychology = 27 = 15.4%
- Learning = 6 = 3.4%
- Motivation and emotion = 6 = 3.4%
- Cognitive processes = 31 = 17.7%
- History and philosophy of psychology = 5 = 2.8%
- Biological bases of behaviour = 16 = 9.1%
- Sensory processes = 3 = 1.7%
- Psychological testing and assessment = 14 = 8%
- Research methods = 14 = 8%
- Cross-cultural psychology = 6 = 3.4%
- Organisational psychology = 12 = 6.8%
- Forensic psychology = 9 = 5.1%
- Other = 66 = 37.7% The most common research areas identified under "Other" were: Health Psychology (12), Clinical Psychology (5), Sport Psychology (4), Neuropsychology (3), Counselling Psychology (3) and Human Factors (2)
Note: A number of respondents identified more than one primary area of research
Q5. Categorise non-serial research collection of own university
- General interest only = 14 = 8%
- Appropriate for general public = 8 = 4.5%
- Undergraduate level only = 73 = 41.7%
- Postgraduate level only = 53 = 30.2%
- Needs of advanced researchers = 23 = 13.1%
- A comprehensive collection = 5 = 2.8%
Q6 (a). Common difficulties in accessing monographs
- No difficulties indicated = 56 = 32%
- Inadequate collection/service in own university = 77 = 44% Difficulties included split collections, lack of older/newer monographs, purchasing budget restrictions, delays in purchasing/shelving ("about 2 years")
- ILL too slow = 13 = 7.4%
- ILL too expensive = 7 = 4%
- Other difficulties = 12 = 6.8% The most common other difficulty related to access to information about what was available elsewhere. Too short a period for ILLs was also mentioned.
Note: A number of respondents listed more than one difficulty
Q6 (b). Tools used to find the location of books
Note: A total of 81 different tools were identified including word of mouth, research assistants, commercial promotional material ("I would be happy to learn of better ways to become familiar with everything published in my area") and colleagues overseas. One respondent indicated a reliance on research assistants because "[I am] untrained in current techniques". Many respondents listed more than one tool. The most frequently cited tools were:
- Own universitys on-line catalogue = 37 = 21.1%
- PsycLit (on CD) = 31 = 17.7%
- Other on-line library catalogues = 26 = 14.8%
- The Internet = 25 = 14.2%
- ILL and document delivery = 21 = 12%
- CD ROM databases = 17 = 9.7%
- Publishers catalogues = 15 = 8.5%
Q6 (c). Frequency of inter-library loans each year
- 20+ = 35 = 20%
- 10-20 = 35 = 20%
- 6-10 = 12 = 6.8%
- 2-5 = 42 = 24%
- 1-2 = 38 = 21.7%
- Never = 11 =6.2%
Q6 (d). Overseas inter-library loan usage each year
- 10-20 = 4 = 2.2%
- 6-10 = 1 = 0.5%
- 2-5 = 11 = 6.2%
- 1-2 = 58 = 33.1%
- Never = 101 = 57.7%
Q6 (e). Australian inter-library loan usage for non-Australian books each year
- 20+ = 7 = 4%
- 10-20 = 16 = 9.1%
- 6-10 = 17 = 9.7%
- 2-5 = 44 = 25.1%
- 1-2 = 58 = 33.1%
- Never = 27 = 15.4%
Q6 (f). How to improve inter-library loan service
- No current problems = 28 = 17.8%
- Reduce cost = 28 = 17.8%
- Improve speed = 31 = 19.7%
- Electronic solutions = 25 = 14.2%
- Other (staffing, more books) = 3 = 1.7%
Q6 (g). Other suggestions about improving access to overseas books
49 respondents offered advice in this section. The most common suggestions were:
- Journals are the problem, not books (7 respondents)
- Buy more books (6 respondents)
- Electronic solutions (6 respondents)
- Co-ordinate libraries purchasing (3 respondents)
- Reduce costs (2 respondents)
- More care in photocopying articles (2 respondents)
- Inter-library loan of monograph chapters only (2 respondents)
- On-line access to contents page (2 respondents)
Additional suggestions included:
- Researchers to submit library orders for new books [Note: This already happens in a number of universities. A perceived problem is that the practice can lead to excessive duplication across institutions]
- Provide information about likely delays
- Need for data base on overseas collections [Note: This is currently available through Kinetica, and although end user access to Kinetica is being trialled by some institutions, as yet, many institutions do not intend to provide this access]
- "Need for an integrated on-line catalogue that covers all Australian university libraries" [Note: as above]
- Longer loan periods
- "Librarians are sweet and helpful, the libraries are run down and decrepit"
Data Analysis
The two discipline surveys provided a significant amount of data. The data was sufficiently robust to provide opportunities for appropriate encoding and multi-variate analysis. Preliminary findings from both disciplines are set out below followed by some comparative analysis.
A. English
The 27 universities represented by researchers in English were a representative cross-section of the university system (Q1). So too were the levels of academic appointment (Q2). It is important to note that not one of the researchers reported that their own university librarys non-serial collection was in the highest suggested rank (a comprehensive collection). The highest rank used (a collection meeting the needs of advanced researchers in the field) was chosen by 28.2% of respondents (a total of 28 researchers). They came mainly from the University of Sydney (8), the University of Western Australia (6), the University of Queensland (3), the University of NSW (2) and La Trobe (2). The only other collections cited as meeting advanced research needs were Adelaide, Monash, CSU (literacy education), Newcastle (feminist studies), Murdoch (feminist studies) and ANU. On the other hand, 43.4% of respondents described their universitys collection as being no better than meeting the needs of undergraduate students. The 10.1% of respondents who gave their universitys collection the lowest research ranking (a general interest collection only) came from the following universities: University of Tasmania (3), University of Melbourne and the University of Western Sydney (2 respondents each), and from Central Queensland University, University of Canberra, ANU, James Cook University, Australian Catholic University and Macquarie University with 1 respondent each (Q5).
While 37.3% of respondents reported having no common difficulties in accessing monographs needed for their research, 43.4% identified problems associated with their own universitys collection. Another 6% identified cost factors involved in ILLs as creating difficulties and a further 9% cited speed of ILL service as a problem. In all, 62.7% of the English researchers had common difficulties in accessing monographs to support their research (Q6 a).
English researchers seem adept at using electronic tools to find the books they need. 20.2% reported using the Internet, and 22.2% said they used the on-line catalogues of other libraries. A further 13.1% identified CD-ROM databases as frequently used tools. The respondents cited a considerable diversity of individual systems and databases. One respondent called for more training for academic staff in accessing electronic information (Q6 b).
Some important findings emerged from the three questions dealing specifically with inter-library loan usage. 14.1% of respondents reported ordering inter-library loans more than 20 times a year. These researchers were spread across a range of universities (including those with more highly ranked collections) and tended to be working in the less popular or newer primary areas of identified research (eg. in early English language and literature; literary theory/criticism/cultural studies; media/film studies; and other literatures in English). At the other end of the scale, those 27.2% of researchers who reported never using inter-library loans or infrequent use (1-2 per year) tended to be spread across a similar broad range of universities but concentrated in the more common areas of identified research (e.g. 19th century, 20th century and Australian English and literature) (Q6 c).
Similar findings emerged from the replies relating specifically to inter-library loans from overseas libraries and to non-Australian books borrowed on inter-library loan from Australian libraries. The one researcher borrowing more than 20 books a year from overseas identified Old Norse and Icelandic Studies as the main area of research interest. The three researchers who reported borrowing up to 20 books a year from overseas libraries were also all working in small or new areas (early English language and literature, literary theory/criticism/cultural studies, and drama/theatre studies). Their universities were Curtin, Queensland and Sydney. More important is the information that 80.8% of respondents make only infrequent (1-2 per year) use or no use at all of overseas inter-library loans. All the most common primary areas of research were represented in this group (Q6 d). The largest inter-library loan users of non-Australian books held in Australian libraries were also working in less common research areas. Of the 10 researchers who reported more than 20 such loans per year, 3 nominated literary theory/ criticism/cultural studies as their primary area, while another 5 nominated childrens literature, other literatures in English, Old Norse, and 15th 17th century studies as their primary research areas. 42.4% of all respondents reported making infrequent (1-2 per year) or nil use of such loans (Q6 e). These responses support the conclusion that approximately 27% of all researchers in English make little or no use whatever of inter-library monograph loans from Australian libraries, while more than 80% never or rarely borrow from overseas. The most important determinant of frequency of borrowing is the relative newness or smallness of the research field.
In other words, the data suggests that the primary area of research (Q4) rather than the institutional base (Q2) is the more important variable in determining inter-library loan usage among English scholars. This further suggests that libraries are lagging "behind" the research interests of their users or that when a number of primary areas of research compete for library resources, the researchers in the less common areas are disadvantaged. There seem to be important lessons concerning research and collection focus in this information.
Although 26.2% of respondents reported having no problems with current inter-library loan service, 42.2% suggested improvements ranging from a need to reduce costs (18.1%), better turn-around time (10.1%) and the need to more fully utilise electronic solutions (8%) (Q6 f). Electronic solutions were the most common suggestion in that final section of the survey calling for additional comment (Q6 g). It is worth noting that some of the electronic solutions proposed (eg direct access to a catalogue of the entire national collection) are already available in libraries, but not directly to researchers.
B. Psychology
The 33 universities represented by researchers in Psychology were an even better sample of the university system (a total of 38 universities) than were the 27 institutions represented by researchers in English (Q2). It is probably true that there are more Psychology researchers in Australian universities than English researchers. It is not possible to be certain of this because teaching and research which might be located in an English department in some (especially older) universities is sometimes paralleled in other institutions in Communications or Cultural Studies or Australian Studies departments or groupings. Levels of academic appointment for researchers in Psychology were similar to those in English (52.5% above the level of lecturer compared to 57.5%) (Q1). 2.8% of Psychology researchers (a total of 5 respondents drawn from University of Queensland, University of NSW, University of Canberra, Flinders and Monash) rated the non-serial research collection of their own university as comprehensive. Another 13.1% rated it as meeting the needs of advanced researchers (Queensland (5), Macquarie (4), Melbourne (3), Western Australia, New South Wales, ANU and Monash (2 each) and Newcastle, Sydney and UNE with 1 each). A further 30.2% believed that their university library met the needs of post-graduate students. This leaves 54.2% of respondents rating their own universitys collection as no better than meeting undergraduate needs (Q5).
Those respondents who ranked their universitys monograph collection in the lowest category (general interest only) included researchers from the Australian Catholic University (2), Tasmania (2, including "awful!"), and Southern Queensland, Murdoch, Edith Cowan, Western Sydney, Ballarat, La Trobe, Griffith, Victoria University of Technology, UNE ("the worst library I have ever seen!"), South Australia, Melbourne and Swinburne. While overall ratings revealed by these figures are similar to those of the English researchers, there is a more narrow distribution among institutions at all levels of the Psychology responses. A reasonable conclusion is that researcher perception of monograph collections in Psychology is determined more by institutional type than by research focus, the opposite of the result in English. This conclusion is supported by noting that seven of the eight major national research universities are listed in one or both of the two highest categories of Psychology collections (out of a total of 12 universities) compared with 6 major research universities (out of a total of 8 universities) for English. Only one Psychology researcher listed a major research university in the lowest category compared to 3 in English.
While 32% of Psychology respondents reported having no common difficulties in accessing monographs needed for their research (compared with 37.3% of English researchers), 44 % identified problems associated with their own universitys collection (the figure for English researchers was 43.4%). Another 4% identified cost factors involved in ILLs as creating difficulties and a further 7.4% cited speed of ILL service as a problem. In all 68% identified common difficulties in accessing monographs to support their research (Q6 a). The level of problems in English was 62.7%.
Psychology researchers reported using a variety of electronic tools to locate the books they need. 14.2% reported using the Net and 14.8% said they used the on-line catalogues of other libraries. A further 27.4% identified CD-ROM's as tools used to find the location of books (Q6 b).
The three questions dealing specifically with inter-library loan usage produced important results. 20% (a total of 35 respondents) said they borrowed more than 20 inter-library loan monographs per year (Q6 c). This compares with a 14.1% high loan rate among English researchers. A further 20% of Psychologists placed themselves in the second highest loan category (10-20 per year), compared to 21.2% of the English respondents. At the bottom end of usage, the results were again similar: 51.9% of Psychology respondents used inter-library loans no more than 5 times a year compared to a 46.4% rate for the English researchers. The high usage researchers in Psychology (unlike those in English) tended to be from the newer universities: the 35 respondents in the highest usage category (more than 20 inter-library loans per year) came from Monash (5), Murdoch (4), Tasmania, Western Sydney and Ballarat (3 each), South Australia, Macquarie, Newcastle and Wollongong and Edith Cowan (2 each), and ACU, Deakin, Flinders, QUT, Curtin, UWA, Griffith, and VUT (1 each). There are only 2 of the 8 major research universities in this list of 18 institutions. Equally, there are only 2 of the 8 among the 11 institutions from which Psychology researchers indicated a zero inter-library loan usage.
Similar findings emerged from the replies relating specifically to inter-library loans from overseas libraries and to non-Australian books borrowed on inter-library loan from Australian libraries. Four researchers reported borrowing more than 10 books a year from overseas libraries (the same number of borrowers as for English). All were from smaller universities and from more common sub-disciplines. Even more striking was that 90.8% of respondents make only infrequent (1-2 per year) use or no use at all of overseas inter-library loans (Q6 d). This compares with a low overseas usage rate of 80.8% by English respondents. The largest inter-library users of non-Australian books held in Australian libraries (Q6 e) were also distributed across a range of sub-disciplines but tended to be confined to the newer universities. Of the 7 respondents who reported borrowing more than 20 such titles per year, 2 were from each of Monash and Western Sydney, and one each from Murdoch, Ballarat and Flinders. Similarly, 13 researchers from 7 of the 8 major (UWA only one not there) research universities were included among the 27 from 19 institutions who reported "never" borrowing titles of that kind.
This preliminary analysis of the data collected in relation to Psychology researchers suggests that inter-library loan usage is less determined by sub-discipline than in English and more by the size of the university collection. Psychology researchers from smaller and newer universities tend to be the largest users of inter-library loan monographs. Similarly, researchers from the older and larger universities tend to utilise such loans less often. This is in contrast to the results from the respondents in English where usage was more determined by sub-discipline than by institutional size or research standing.
Survey Summary and Conclusions
This report details the most substantial data yet collected concerning current library research usage and perceptions by Australian academics in English and Psychology. Data from 99 English researchers in 27 universities and from 175 Psychology researchers in 33 universities was analysed. The survey return rate was 17.4% for English and 30.7% for Psychology. The samples were representative of researchers at each level of academic appointment.
Respondents were asked to categorise the non-serial collection of their own university library in relation to their own area of primary research. No English researcher in any university listed their own collection in the highest category (comprehensive). 24.4% of English researchers listed their own collection as meeting the needs of advanced researchers. 2.8% of researchers in Psychology listed their own collection as comprehensive. Another 13.1% listed their collection as meeting the needs of advanced researchers.
43.4% of English researchers stated that their universitys monograph collection did not meet the needs of postgraduate research. 54.2% of Psychology researchers also felt that their collection did not meet postgraduate research needs.
62.7% of English researchers reported having common difficulties in accessing monographs to support their research. The figure for Psychology researchers was 68%.
Researchers in both English and Psychology reported widespread use of electronic search tools available to them.
Inter-library loans are of importance in relation to approximately 50% of the research being conducted in English and Psychology in Australian universities. 50.4% of English researchers reported that they used inter-library loans at least 6 times each year. The figure for Psychology researchers was 46.8%. Inter-library loan usage among English researchers was determined largely by their nominated primary area of research. Those English researchers working in smaller or newer fields made greater use of such loans than did their colleagues in the more common areas of research, regardless of institutional affiliation. On the other hand, inter-library loan usage among Psychology researchers was determined largely by their institutional affiliation. Psychology researchers working in newer and smaller universities made greater use of such loans than did their colleagues in larger and more established institutions, regardless of their nominated area of primary research.
Only 7% of English researchers made regular use (more than 6 times per year) of overseas inter-library loans. Only 2.7% of Psychology researchers made such use. 39.4% of English researchers reported zero usage of overseas loans as did 57.7% of Psychology researchers.
35.3% of English researchers reported regular use (more than 6 times per year) of inter-library loans from Australian libraries of non-Australian monographs. 22.8% of Psychology researchers reported such usage.
26.2% of English researchers reported they had no problems with current inter-library loan service. 17.8% of Psychology researchers also had no problems. The three most commonly reported problems were: cost (18.1% & 17.8%), speed (10.1% & 19.7%) and the need to find better means of electronic access to monographs and information about them (8% & 14.2%).
All the above suggests that while there may be no "crisis" in access to monographs in English or Psychology there are very real problems, especially in the smaller and newer sub-disciplines and in the smaller and newer universities. There are also problems related to quality and cost of delivery and to the perceived failure of libraries to take advantage of available digital technology in facilitating access to inter-library loans. The further and disturbing fact that approximately 50% of researchers in both disciplines (43.4% in English and 54.2% in Psychology) regard their own university library as inadequate for any research work more advanced than undergraduate tells us a great deal about the current maldistribution of research resources and opportunities in our universities.
It is also striking that such little use is made of overseas inter-library loans. More than 80% of English researchers make little or no use of such loans while 90% of Psychology researchers fall into the same category.
The Big Debate
While data for this paper was being collected, the Australian Federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs published a discussion paper on higher education research and research training: New Knowledge, New Opportunities (Kemp, 1999). The Green Paper clearly sets the scene for a major shift in thinking about Australias national research agenda and appropriate ways of funding it. There is therefore an opportunity to set recommendations stemming from the findings of this research concerning monograph access in English and Psychology into the broader context of the current and likely future debate about the national research effort and its distribution.
A recurrent theme in the Green Paper is the need for Australias research effort to be internationally competitive. The paper identifies knowledge as a key factor in determining the strength and prosperity of nations. It further identifies research as a major source of knowledge and new ideas. If Australia has a strong research system in place, the paper suggests the nation will be well placed to prosper, both economically and socially. It follows that research in Australia must be of the highest standard and that each organisation responsible for research output must ensure that its personnel and the resources available to them are of a sufficiently high quality to ensure internationally competitive results. But as the Green Paper says:
- "The current structure of incentives [for research in Australia] encourages all universities to be comprehensive research institutions, rewarding them for the breadth of research they undertake. As institutions struggle to remain competitive across many fields, as well as take up opportunities in emerging areas of research, there is a greater call on an institutions limited resources, which may jeopardise the overall quality of Australias research endeavours. If Australia is to be competitive in a global knowledge economy, we must be at world-standard in every field in which we are research-active. This requires institutions to determine their own research strengths and concentrate available resources to create a critical mass of internationally reputable expertise. Institutions must be encouraged to set their own clear priorities for research and research training, as well as provide an environment that will attract the best researchers and postgraduate students in its chosen fields." (p.10)
The evidence detailed in this report was provided by researchers themselves in the disciplines of English and Psychology, drawn from across the full spectrum of Australias universities. The evidence shows that many (indeed most) of our institutions are struggling to remain competitive in the provision of key research resources, are finding it difficult to take up opportunities in emerging areas of research and are hard-pressed to best utilise their limited resources.
An additional major theme in the Green Paper concerns linkage and collaboration. The Paper suggests the need for an enhanced sense of collaboration between researchers and institutions. "Collaboration should encompass the sharing of knowledge, technique, expertise and research infrastructure and take varying forms", the Paper says, "including cooperative projects" (p.15). Two such collaborative and cooperative endeavours, which currently exist as part of Australias research infrastructure, are products of the national research library sector. The first endeavour is the National Bibliographic Database (NBD) which seeks to provide access to the holdings of all Australian research libraries. The collections of over 850 libraries are recorded. The NBD has been compiled since 1981 by libraries using the Kinetica service and its predecessor the Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN). ABN became operational in 1980 and was replaced by Kinetica in 1999. Kinetica is a system provided by the National Library of Australia to give access to the national database of material held in Australian libraries. Kinetica can be used to search for any item, locate which library in Australia holds it, and arrange to access the item through inter-library loan. Gateways to other major library databases are also provided. (Further information about Kinetica is available from http://www.nla.gov.au/kinetica/)
The most recent paper detailing the workings of the NBD (NLA, 1999) revealed that there is still considerable ignorance or misinformation about the database in the library and research communities. The paper identified significant library holdings not yet included on the NBD (see also Elson-Green, 1999). It also revealed a lack of consistency in approaches and methodologies designed to ensure fuller and more effective participation in the database in the future. In addition, as the research described in this report has shown, there is a lack of understanding by users of libraries about the NBD and access to it. Kinetica access to the NBD is a powerful research tool, very much in tune with the collaborative and sharing proposals of the research Green Paper. At the moment, however, lack of researcher access to Kinetica is stalling the full utilisation of the NBDs potential.
This report also reveals that there are significant current impediments to a full utilisation of the second cooperative endeavour developed by the Australian library sector. The report shows that, at least for researchers in the disciplines of English and Psychology, approximately half their research activity is dependent upon access to inter-library loans. This is because almost all the surveyed researchers indicated that the collection of their own university library was inadequate for research at the highest level. Indeed, more than half of the researchers in Psychology and nearly half of those in English expressed the view that their own universitys collection was inadequate to meet even the needs of postgraduate researchers. But the paper also shows that three out of four researchers in English and more than four out of five in Psychology reported inadequacies or deficiencies revealed by their attempted use of the current inter-library loan system. A number of the identified problems relate to lack of ready access to information about a particular monographs location. This problem in turn points to the deficiencies in access to Kinetica outlined above, as well as to shortcomings in the development of shared and co-operative policies in relation to collection development. The inter-library loan system among Australian collections (lack of access to international collections is another issue highlighted by the paper) has great potential to ensure a much wider and more efficient sharing of national resources than currently exists. It could make a greater contribution to the national cooperative research effort than is presently the case.
It must be noted, however, that the recent (May 1999) convening by the National Library of Australia of the National Resource Sharing Working Group has led to an enhanced focus on issues relating to improving inter-library loans and document delivery. The Working Group has noted that despite the acceptance of the concept of a Distributed National Collection (DNC), and agreement to record library collecting strengths and intentions by Australian libraries, these are, as yet, not underpinned by agreed policies for access. Cooperative collection development efforts among Australian libraries are limited and have not lived up to the promise of the early discussion of DNC issues. Cooperative collecting efforts primarily exist between the National Library and State Libraries in relation to collecting Australian materials with the emphasis on preserving the national documentary heritage and not necessarily on access. The Group also observed that until appropriate and reliable access regimes capable of delivering just-in-time performance have been developed, cooperative collection development is unlikely to find favour among Australian research libraries (NRSWG, 1999).
Similarly, another recent paper calling for investment in information and knowledge infrastructure has identified the need for a strategic framework for Australias research enterprise (McLean, 1999). Such a framework is seen as essential if there is to be a competitive and sustainable research information infrastructure in this country. The paper calls for firm national directions for investment in information and knowledge infrastructure in order to strengthen the capacity of Australias research enterprise in its quest to be globally competitive. Such language is not dissimilar to that of the governments Green Paper. Particularly relevant to this report is the papers acknowledgment of the need to map the functional requirements to support a distributed information and knowledge services environment. It also identifies the necessity of defining the information and knowledge architectures required to support the various discipline areas within the research community. This final point is very much in line with the implicit views of those researchers in both English and Psychology who showed earlier in this report their dissatisfaction with the current arrangements.
One further recent paper, coming out of the Council of Australian University Librarians, describes an action plan to facilitate access to information resources required for the advancement of teaching, learning and research in Australian universities (Lim, 1999). This paper recognises the need for an effective national academic library network and calls for three further developments:
- A legal framework which formalises the resource sharing goals of Australian university libraries;
- A business model which ensures that the collaborative environment is financially viable; and,
- An architecture using portal technologies which integrates the various projects which have been or are being initiated or promoted by CAUL so that all users have an integrated view of the information resources available in this collaborative environment.
Lims detailed account of portal technologies is complex and obviously subject to considerable further debate. On the other hand, his call for an appropriate legal framework and a viable business model for enhanced resource sharing among Australian research libraries is very much in line with the policy initiatives which were crystallised in the Anderson report into similar considerations in the United Kingdom (Anderson, 1995). Anderson inquired into existing inter-library cooperative arrangements, particularly in relationship to increasing selectivity in the funding of research within the UK university system. Anderson held the view that it was neither feasible nor desirable to expect each institution to provide for all the research needs of its staff and students. His report went so far as to suggest that such a level of research independence was not possible for an institution in the western world. Instead, the Anderson report suggested the formation of a national research library strategy that would operate fairly and to the advantage of all. Andersons proposals, now largely in place, seem particularly relevant to Australia at this point in the development of our national research policy. While the geography of our country is significantly different to that of the UK, Andersons key proposal is still in accord the findings of this report and with the tenor of the various other recent papers, which have been discussed. Andersons report urged the establishment of collaborative arrangements between libraries, which would ensure access, free at the point of use, for all researchers to collections that were part of the national research strategy. Where such an arrangement placed any significant additional financial burden on a particular institution, he argued, appropriate financial recompense should be available through the various UK higher education finding authorities. These recommendations have now been adopted through the UKs Funding Councils Research Support Strategy. This strategy has four major strands:
- Supporting access by researchers to major holdings libraries;
- Collaborative collection management projects;
- Research support for continued development of national Humanities and Social Science collections; and,
- Targeted retrospective conversion of catalogues.
All of these strands from the Anderson report find strong echoes in the conclusions drawn from the research detailed in this report.
Within Australia we now have an historic opportunity, shaped by the publication of the Green Paper on research, to ensure the formulation and introduction of a properly funded national strategy to sustain and develop the Australian research library system. Such an approach is pivotal in ensuring equitable access to Australian library material, including access to monographs, by all researchers.
Recommendations
In light of the findings of this report, and in terms of the broader discussion concerning national research policy, the following recommendations are offered:
A. Inter-library loans
- The National Resource Sharing Working Group be provided with a copy
of this report and are urged to address the following issues:
- Strategies to improve the affordability of inter-library loans;
- Ways of improving information about how long inter-library loans will take to arrive;
- Ways of increasing the speed of delivery of inter-library loans; and,
- Increasing the loan periods for monographs and improving the flexibility of loan periods.
- The National Library of Australia addresses, through the Kinetica
service:
- Ways of implementing user initiated inter-library loan services; and,
- The provision of table of contents of monographs, so the inter-library loan requests can be better informed.
B. Collection strengths
That the National Library of Australia:
- Forwards comments to university libraries, made by respondents to the survey, regarding their particular collections and services, for their consideration; and,
- Requests that all university libraries reported here include information on their collection strengths to the Australian Libraries Gateway (ALG).
C. Acquisitions
- The National Library of Australia identifies and promotes best practice guidelines for acquisitions procedures.
D. Resource discovery
- The National Library of Australia, in cooperation with the Council of Australian University Librarians and other relevant groups, develops a strategy for increasing awareness of the NBD among academics;
- As a priority, the National Library of Australia tests ways of increasing the provision of end user access to Kinetica; and,
- The availability of end-user access to Kinetica is promoted, and the experiences of users publicised.
E. Funding
- In the light of the Green Paper on research, the Australian Research Council (ARC), as a part of the formation of a new national strategy on research, play a role in funding the development of an appropriate national research library system.
F. Collection development
- That all higher education institutions funded as part of the national research library system be required to provide to the ARC details of how they intend to provide adequate access to library materials for research in the various subject areas for which they have research funding; and,
- That higher education institutions work together to build a strong national collection, which minimises unnecessary resource duplication and expense, and that evidence of such cooperation be a necessary requirement for their ongoing participation in the national research library system.
G. General
- That the substance and implications of this report be the basis of a response from the Task Force, to the Green Paper on Higher Education Research and Research Training.
References
Access to Overseas published monographs in Australia: Inter-library lending, (1998). Canberra: National Library of Australia.
Anderson, M. (1995). Joint Funding Councils Library Review: Report of the Group on a National/Regional Strategy for Library Provision for Researchers. sl: The Group.
Australian Library Collections Task Force (1999). National bibliographic database survey. Canberra: NLA.
Collier, B. (1999). Dont publish and be damned, The Australian, 17 March, p.41.
Elson-Green. J. (1999). Gaps in data base threaten research, Campus Review, 18-24 August, p.6.
Fletcher, N. (1998). Physics monograph holdings in Australian university libraries. Unpublished paper.
Foster, S. and OHare, M. (1998). User perceptions of overseas monographs. Canberra: National Academies Forum.
Kemp, D. (1999). New knowledge, new opportunities: a discussion paper on higher education research and research training. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Lim, E., Gow, E. and Parker, D. (1999). An electronic special portal for an Australian collaborative environment (eSpace). Unpublished paper.
McLean, N. (1999). Investment in information and knowledge infrastructure: a strategic framework for Australias research enterprise. Unpublished paper.
Nardini, B. (1997). The specialized scholarly monograph: at the crossroads of redefining scholarship and scholarly publishing, Trialogue, 6.
National resource sharing working group (1999). Discussion paper. Unpublished paper.
Overseas monograph collecting in Australia: observations based on the National Bibliographic Database (NBD) (1998). Canberra: National Library of Australia.
