Go to National Library of Australia Home PageNational Library of Australia Online

SEARCH:

National Round Table on Access to Overseas Monographs Through Australian Libraries

28 August 1998, National Library of Australia


USER PERCEPTIONS OF OVERSEAS MONOGRAPHS: HUMANITIES

Dr David Bennett

______________________________________

Introduction

There are three questions that I shall address:

  1. How do Humanities scholars use monographs?
  2. Why is it important to Humanities scholars to have access in Australia to overseas monographs? and
  3. In light of answers to the first two questions, what are Humanities perceptions of issues relating to overseas monographs availability and access?

How do Humanities scholars use monographs?

Before answering this question, there is a previous question that needs to be addressed: What is a Humanities scholar? This question, in turn, has two parts: What are the Humanities and What is a scholar? Neither of these questions has simple answers.

Humanities

In its recent (1998), Strategic Disciplinary Review on Research and Research Training in the Humanities for the Australian Research Council (ARC) Knowing Ourselves and Others. The Humanities in Australia into the 21st Century, the Australian Academy of the Humanities identified 27 Humanities disciplines. Alphabetically these range from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies to Southeast Asian Studies. Temporally these range from classics and archaeology to medieval studies to early modern studies. Conceptually these range from philosophy to language to history to cultural studies to the visual and performing arts. In other words, Humanities is "a whole array of fields and disciplines that are encompassed by [an] umbrella term" (ARC 1998: xvii) to include but not limited to Asian studies, classical studies, history, prehistory and archaeology, cultural and communications studies, linguistics and philology, the Arts, philosophy, religion & history of ideas, European languages & literature, and English.

Scholarship

One method, particularly relevant to this forum, for defining scholarship is to come at it from the reverse angle and to use the Conspectus system developed to analyse the breadth and scope of library collections in terms of standard descriptions. "Against these standard descriptions, it is possible to assign collection levels as a means of indicating the overall strength and subject coverage of the collection" (NLA 1998b: 40) and thus to understand what sustained scholarship requires. Conspectus Levels 4 and 5 state:

Level 4: Research

Collections at this level will contain both current and retrospective resources and will retain historical materials. Such collections will provide materials in all appropriate formats and languages including original material and ephemera, all important reference works, a wide selection of specialised monographs, a very extensive collection of journals and immediate access to bibliographies, abstracting and indexing services in the field, materials containing research findings and non-bibliographic databases.

Collections at this level will support postgraduate and independent research and will include all the major published source materials required.

Level 5: Comprehensive

Collections at this level will include, as far as is reasonably possible, all significant works of recorded knowledge (publications, manuscripts and other information sources) in all applicable languages, for a necessarily defined and limited field. This level of collecting intensity is one that will maintain a special collection; the aim, if not the achievement, will be the exhaustive coverage of a specific subject area or discipline. (NLA 1998b: 41).

 

It is interesting to note that level 3: intermediate, which is adequate for "undergraduate and most graduate instruction" contains the following passage, "Such a collection is adequate to impart and maintain knowledge of a subject at less than research level intensity" (NLA 1998b: 40). Thus, for Humanities scholars, to quote Level 4, the level at which research can be sustained, "a wide selection of specialised monographs" is required for scholarly research. Or to paraphrase Knowing Ourselves and Others, Humanities scholars need a whole array of overseas monographs in "a whole array of fields and disciplines" for scholarly research.

A good deal of this scholarship is conducting in or utilises one or more languages other than English. While most respondents in the Foster and O’Hare survey "(82%) report no problems or offer no comment on accessing foreign language monographs", the major exceptions were "Japanese History (57%) and a minority of respondents from Classical Languages and Literature (38%)" (1998: 11). These are Humanities fields.

So, "How do Humanities scholars use monographs?" On the whole, Humanities scholars base their reputations on monographs. "[H]umanities scholars in Australia publish many more books and chapters in books, and far fewer journal articles, than scholars in other disciplines" (Johanson, Schauder and Lim 1998: 132). Monographs, therefore, play a large part their research and keeping abreast of developments in their field. According to the Foster and O’Hare statistics, Humanities scholars are among the most voracious users of overseas monographs. Scholars in British History and Classical Languages and Literature report using 11 and 22 monographs weekly respectively (Foster and O’Hare 1998: 8).

In a word, Humanities scholars use monographs - Extensively!

Why is it important to Humanities scholars to have access in Australia to overseas monographs?

Monographs "are used more by humanities scholars than journals. Various studies of use between 1959 and 1990 suggest that on average 72 per cent of the print sources of a humanities scholar are books, and 21 per cent are journal articles" (Johanson, Schauder and Lim 1998: 131 - 132).

In some areas of the Humanities, e.g., Aboriginal studies, dependence on overseas monographs might be quite low, since Australia is the international nucleus of research and publishing activity in this field. In other fields where a great amount of the publishing activity is overseas, the requirement is much greater. In the Foster and O’Hare survey, 91% of respondents in British History, 62% of respondents in Japanese History, and 100% of respondents in Classical Languages and Literature ranked access to overseas monographs as ‘very important’ for their research. While it must be noted that the number of respondents in each of these fields was low, nevertheless the overall ‘very important’ rating of all fields was 85%. Also as quoted earlier, respondents in British History and Classical Languages and Literature report using 11 and 22 monographs weekly respectively (1998: 8) which would be published overseas despite where the research might have taken place.

Interestingly, 61% of users needs are "satisfied by the respondent’s own institutional library. The remaining needs are satisfied by personal purchases (40%) and inter-library loans (28%)" (Foster and O’Hare 1998: 4). CAUL statistics for 1996, as an example, show that university libraries borrowed 93,662 items (CAUL 1998: 2). Note that this statistic represents all items borrowed and not specifically overseas monographs. Nonetheless, if this represents 28% of remaining user needs, then on the ratio of 28:40 it can be estimated that users purchased on the order of 130,231 monographs in 1996. What can be made of this? Perhaps a number of scholars wish to own resource materials. "I buy whatever I can. If a book is important, I want to have my own copy", reported one Foster and O’Hare respondent (1998: 14). This is good for the publishing trade. Or perhaps, despite the number of monographs purchased and the number accessed on ILL (inter-library loan) there is still a substantial shortfall in meeting the needs of scholars.

According to the Foster and O’Hare statistics, on average 11% of overseas monograph needs remain unsatisfied after completing a search. Given that British History and Classical Languages and Literature report using 11 and 22 monographs weekly respectively, this would mean that per respondent on a weekly basis approximately 1 overseas monograph pertaining to British History and 2 overseas monographs pertaining to Classical Languages and Literature are not located. This in turn would suggest that approximately 50 monographs pertaining to British History and 100 overseas monographs pertaining to Classical Languages and Literature are not located per year.

Quantity may be a ruse. The real issue may be relevance. While there are no available statistics to show that the overseas monographs being purchased are those the researchers most need, quotations from the Foster and O’Hare’s respondents indicate that the quality of research at least in some cases is being compromised. "[W]e have shrunk down to an English language only ghetto" reports one respondent (Foster and O’Hare 1998: 11). Another quotation states, "library not keeping up with modern language publication in Italian, French and German" (Foster and O’Hare 1998: 13). If the 11% of overseas monograph needs that remain unsatisfied contains even a significant portion of relevant books, then as respondents report the lack of certain resources affects the quality of research and "makes it more difficult and frustrating", "reduced scope for research", and "less access to research works, more costly ILL, cutting one’s losses and disregarding valuable sources not available" (Foster and O’Hare 1998: 14).

Another reason that it is important for Humanities scholars to have access to overseas monographs is, "For a humanities scholar, the origin of a source may be a clue to important aspects of it — its authority, authorial intent, history of dissemination — which often require extraneous proof to help validate its authenticity" (Johanson, Schauder and Lim 1998: 131). That is, the physical form of the text as well as the content of the text may be an important aspect of Humanities research.

What are Humanities perceptions of issues relating to overseas monographs availability and access?

There is an increased perception that the number of overseas monographs acquired is decreasing (Foster and O’Hare 1998: 12). NLA statistics for the period 1975 to 1995 for Australian library acquisition of English language monographs published overseas show "the pattern of acquisition while reasonably steady, has declined over the last 25 years. This decline has been from 67.7% of the published output in 1975 to 55.2% being acquired in 1995, a decline of 11.5%" (NLA 1998c: 4). The decline in acquisition of overseas English language monographs is particularly dramatic in English history. "The pattern of Australian library acquisition in English history has shown a steady downward trend from 1975 with the exception of 1988 when there was a slight increase. ... The decline over the twenty-year period has been steep as the percentage held has dropped from 64% in 1975 to 37% in 1995... (NLA 1998c: 7). NLA statistics for the same period for acquisition of non-English language monographs published overseas show "Over the 20 years, the percentage of non-English language titles acquired by Australia [sic] libraries each year declined by 12.1%" (NLA 1998c: 5). In Japanese history, "The pattern of acquisition has shown a sharp decline from 80% of non-English language titles being acquired in 1975 to 15% in 1995" (NLA 1998c: 8). One of the Foster and O’Hare respondents asserted a possible reason for decline in acquisition of non-English language publications, the respondent noted that a particularly university library, "routinely disallows all requests for books in languages other than English" (Foster and O’Hare 1998: 11).

Qantas Solution

Acquiring access to monographs for research within Australia is only one method of acquiring access to them. It is not the only method, nor is it always the most desirable. Travelling overseas to do research is often a scholarly wise method of acquiring access to overseas monographs, collections, and colleagues. In the case of some rare or original monographs, it is the only method. Warren Horton has dubbed this ‘the Qantas solution’. Many scholars acknowledge that they are placing "more reliance on overseas visits for research purposes" (Foster and O’Hare 1998: 4). Although this is a valuable and indeed desirable complement to making overseas monographs available in Australia, it is not a substitute for it. A number of Foster and O’Hare’s respondents report, "work is slowed down. I have only been able to manage by annual visits to libraries in Germany" and "I’m always shocked, visiting foreign libraries, at how much we don’t have, and worry that my published papers are naive" (Foster and O’Hare 1998: 15). This would suggest that despite only an 11% shortfall in finding monographs, there is a wealth of material unsought.

In addition to being a very expensive solution for the individual scholar, "the Qantas solution" contains the same inherent problem that gave rise to this Round Table. Overseas libraries are experiencing many of the same collection difficulties faced in Australia. They too experience decreasing funds, decreasing buying power, and increasing prices, although conceivably to different degrees.

Concluding points

  • Humanities scholars have a high dependence on monographs for research.
  • Humanities scholars rank the use of monographs ‘very important’ to their research.
  • The failure rate to locate overseas monographs is low, but reported to be fairly significant in some fields.
  • In some fields, access in Australia to non-English language monographs are particularly inadequate.
  • Humanities scholars are coming to depend more on doing research overseas.

Dr David H Bennett
Executive Director
19 August 1998

Bibliography

Australian Research Council (ARC). (1998) Knowing Ourselves and Others: the Humanities in Australia into the 21st Century. Vol. 1. Australian Research Council, Discipline Research Strategies. Canberra: AGPS.

Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL). (1998) Acquisition of Monographs in Australia University Libraries 1992-1996: CAUL statistics. Canberra; CAUL.

Foster, Stephen and Martin O’Hare. (1998) User Perceptions of Overseas Monographs: analysis of a questionnaire compiled by the National Academies Forum for teachers and researchers relating to the availability of overseas monographs in Australian libraries, July 1998. Canberra: NAF.

Johanson, Graeme, Schauder, Don and Edward Lim. (1998) "Libraries in the Information Infrastructure for Humanities Scholars in Australia", In Australian Research Council. (1998) Knowing Ourselves and Others: the Humanities in Australia into the 21st Century. Vol 3. Australian Research Council, Discipline Research Strategies. Canberra: AGPS: 129 - 154.

National Library of Australia (NLA). (1998a) Access to Overseas Published Monographs in Australia: Background information prepared for the National Round Table on Access to Overseas Monographs through Australian Libraries, July 1998. Canberra: NLA.

National Library of Australia (NLA). (1998b) Overseas Collection Development Policy, March 1998. Canberra: NLA.

National Library of Australia (NLA). (1998c) Overseas Monographs Colleting In Australia: Observations based on the National Bibliographic Database(NBD): Background information prepared by the National Library of Australia, July 1998. Canberra: NLA.


Return to Round Table Program

Last Updated 16 September 1998