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


OVERSEAS MONOGRAPHS COVERAGE IN AUSTRALIAN LIBRARIES: USER PERSPECTIVES FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

John Robertson

______________________________________

Introduction

As the first speaker, for this session on User Perspectives on Overseas Monograph Coverage in Australian Libraries, I would like to briefly outline the background to the project and how the Social Sciences are affected.

The broad aim of the research project, has been to gain an understanding of trends in overseas monograph collecting by Australian libraries, over the past 20 years. From this process, it has been possible to assess the proportion of monograph publishing, which is available through Australian libraries, and to confirm the evidence, that access to monographs published overseas, is a major issue confronting Australian libraries.

An NLA search result, for the Australian holdings of English Language Monographs, published overseas between 1975 and 1995, indicates that acquisition has declined over the last 25 years. A number of reasons are believed to be responsible for this including expenditure cuts on monographs, to meet serial price increases, a general price increase for serials and monographs, and a continuing exchange rate depreciation.

It is quite clear, that the problems for the Social Sciences and its client base, is far from unique. Starting from the vantage point of identifying key problems, an initial question to be asked, is the extent to which the needs of social scientists, including academics, students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, independent writers and researchers, media and publishers and those in non-academic research centres, are being met.

Not surprisingly, the key issue is how to equate continuing demand, with long-standing downward pressures on library budgets. Since almost all the providers are predominantly

publicly funded, it is likely that in the forseeable future, lower budgets will be the norm and the ever-present exchange rate depreciation, will erode purchasing power. The problem is, therefore, how to develop solutions in an environment which will not see a return of funding to acceptable levels.

It is perhaps worth mentioning at this stage, that the recently published report, Challenges for the Social Sciences and Australia, contains an excellent section by Professor Browne,

devoted to Libraries and Archives. In her contribution, Professor Browne, identifies a number of relevant matters of concern to social scientists, including the provision of overseas monographs. While none of these will be cause for surprise, they are perhaps worth highlighting, as a useful contribution to our proceedings today.

To summarise:

Social Sciences researchers are dependent upon ready access, to a wide variety of information resources and are particularly concerned, about the continued availability of these resources, during a period of financial stringency.

Trends in scholarly communication have combined with the effects of diminishing funds to change the capacity to keep up with the volume of publishing.

Librarians have abandoned the notion, that any one library or information service, can hope to be self-sufficient, in terms of meeting the needs of its users, from its own collections. The dominant belief now, rightly or wrongly, is that the goal of any agency which maintains the intellectual record, is to facilitate access by users, to information when and where it is needed. The core business of librarianship has changed from being about selecting and acquiring volumes, for an extensive, ‘well-rounded’ home-based collection, to being about implementing strategies, which allow individual libraries to acquire information held in other places, where information is requested.

As we found with our User Perspectives survey, many researchers, including some who responded to this questionnaire, are uneasy about the shift in the way the libraries see themselves discharging their role, with all that entails for the individual scholar.

And finally, Professor Browne makes the observation that no Australian library has been self-sufficient, with scholars having to rely on additional materials being acquired for them, from sources outside their home institution.

I turn now to the questionnaire of user perceptions, compiled by the National Academies Forum and to the key results for the 3 Social Sciences disciplines surveyed, namely American Studies, South East Asian Economics and Japanese History. From this, what feedback do we obtain, concerning the environment in which our user groups are now operating?

Moreover, in the light of the above long term scenarios, is there anything to say which contradicts a potentially bleak future, and an inevitable, reluctant acceptance of the status quo. And in spite of the small selective sample of the Social Sciences sixteen disciplines, does a uniform pattern emerge, to indicate how the users are coping with the situation?

 

DISCIPLINE SURVEY

The three areas selected represent a select sample of Social Sciences disciplines, based on a representational mix including: a) subjects that had been traditionally collected; b) a new subject area or emerging area of research interest; c) subjects that are of strong continuing interest; and d) subjects in which collecting patterns had recently changed.

The problem, of course, for the Social Sciences, is that discipline studies are not just related to regions, but include leading edge world studies.

On advice, the initial choice of American Politics as a category, was considered too narrowly defined and was rejected in favour of the broader area of American Studies, which includes history, politics, literature, culture etc.

We were fortunate in our selection, that in spite of the size of the sample, we were able to obtain a quite comprehensive result, due to the relatively small number of specialists in the three areas.

As a general principle, a number of specialist academics in the field were chosen. With such reference tools as the Directory from the Australia Japan Research Centre, devoted to Japanese Studies in Australia, and a range of third-party referrals, it was possible to end up with a good cross-section of representative institutions and specialists.

The close-knit networks, in most cases, led to a very useful snowballing effect for both American Studies and Japanese History. One of the key specialists at ANU in American Studies, for example, who regularly organised conferences, was able to provide a key snapshot of the relevant specialists.

By way of a general comment, although the percentage response for American Studies at 12% and Japanese History at 16%, appears comparatively weak, the technique of targeting key experts in the field, did result in a good overall response, except in the area of Southeast Asian Economics.

I understand, that this sector was the least cooperative, for a range of reasons, and there was not the same level of collegial spirit as with American Studies and Japanese History. One of our Academy Fellows, was extremely helpful in suggesting possible participants, although for him the exercise was of little value, as he had his own library!

This sector proved difficult to get rolling. Although the Economic Society of Australia very kindly agreed to use their email list, the response rate was poor, and there were no responses from those people contacted personally. There was a willingness at the Heads of Department level to circulate questionnaires, but the very low return of 5% was anticipated.

Part of the reason for a small response rate overall, can be attributed to the nature of the questionnaire which was technically complex for some people to access, and a relatively long document to complete. As a result, a number of returns had sections which were left blank.

I would like to now turn, to some of the findings resulting from the questionnaire for the three discipline areas. Earlier findings from the NLA survey, have revealed that for American Studies, the proportion of English language titles acquired by Australian libraries, ranged between 67% in 1975 to 54% in 1993.

The picture for South East Asian Economics over the same period, was more encouraging, although the number of titles listed in the NBD was very small, with holdings of 76.6% for English language and 96% for non-English languages.

In the case of Japanese History, using a small sample of 1,461 titles, some 81% of English language titles listed in the NBD had Australian holdings, with the pattern of acquisition showing a sharp decline from 80% of non-English language titles being acquired in 1975, to 15% in 1995.

SOCIAL SCIENCES : KEY FINDINGS

Some key findings for the Social Sciences disciplines’ survey include the following:

  • Of the 82 responses, representing a rate of 14%, American Studies accounted for 12%, South East Asian Economics was poor, and Japanese History at 16% represented an average return.
  • A high usage rate for monographs, led to a ranking of very important for all 3 areas, in terms of access for research.
  • Of the three areas, only American Studies demonstrated a satisfaction of needs by their own institutional library, although one respondent complained that monographs were much slower to arrive as funds were declining, and less monographs were being purchased. Both South East Asian Economics and Japanese History, largely met their remaining needs by personal purchase with a similar comment about fewer purchases and difficulties in obtaining School authorisation for purchases.
  • Japanese History was a major exception, in reporting problems relating to availability of foreign language monographs and monographs published over five years ago.
  • Not surprisingly, one respondent for Japanese History , had trouble sourcing Japanese books, published during WWII in Australian libraries. The Japanese History respondents, also had particular grievances with institutional procedures. They complained specifically about internal ordering processes, the under-representation in humanities, subjective interests of the library/liaison officer and the need for acquisitions to be handled more rationally, with input from a properly qualified bibliographer/librarian.
  • One American Studies respondent, complained about inconvenience and short delays, as older monographs tended to be hidden away in library stores and one South East Asian Economics respondent, complained about them being hard to find or purchase.

IMPROVED USER ACCESS TO OVERSEAS MONOGRAPHS

In terms of the effects on research for the user groups, difficulties identified were unsurprising. Although generally pleased by existing collection policies, all groups complained of decreasing budgets. There was good feedback on the ILL request system, accompanied by the usual criticisms of the expense involved.

Feedback on the specific action, necessary to improve future provision and access to overseas monographs, can essentially be summarised in terms of accepting the inevitability of an on-line future, but also the desirability of continuing the successful development of institutional cooperation and specialisation.

It is clear, that for some 78% of respondents across all disciplines, the traditional printed product is preferred. However, in spite of legitimate complaints about expense, difficulty in reading and lack of portability, there is a grudging acceptance of an on-line future for full text monographs, including the operation of a pay for use structure, particularly for out of print books.

ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE:THE ASSA PERSPECTIVE

I look forward to hearing today, some suggested solutions to those problems, which will continue to confront the Social Sciences community, and make a number of observations from the perspective of my Academy:

  • There is a need for a continued ‘whole of nation’ approach, to concentrating scarce resources in centres of excellence or specialist centres, which would establish a mechanism, whereby a Social Sciences researcher in Darwin is able to access a specialist collection in Hobart. A recent statement by the Minister, emphasises the importance of cooperation and coordination, and the need to avoid unnecessary duplication. As more libraries undertake the task of collection assessment, it is hoped that a national map of Australia’s collective strengths and weaknesses, and of libraries’ abilities to support research, will begin to emerge.
  • In the forseeable future, the funding situation will not improve and the provision of electronic access is unlikely to be a panacea in the short term.
  • At the same time, for the Social Sciences, there needs to be an enhancing of awareness, concerning the possibilities of electronic access and the conversion of overseas monographs to digital form, similar to what is happening with serials. The message will need to be reinforced that this is not an inexpensive solution and will require the operation of a user pays principle. The issue of fee for usage for digital monographs, will also need to address the possible introduction of micro fees based on usage, with adequate copyright protection and clear delineation between the purposes of browsing and downloading for print purposes.
  • There is a need for our researchers to be made aware of the existence and location of an overseas monograph in Australia, i.e. an increasing familiarity with the National Bibliographic Database (NBD).
  • With the growth in emphasis in most libraries on access, rather than ownership, a change in philosophy which permeates Australian libraries from the NLA down, it seems almost inevitable that reliance on inter-library loan will only increase. We must ensure therefore, that an efficient and speedy system is in place to meet the demand. At the same time, users will need to accept that an increasing number of libraries will pass onto their borrowers, the on-costs associated with interlibrary loans which are regularly charged by Australian tertiary institutions. This will continue to be the case, as the devaluation of the Australian dollar affects the ability of libraries to subsidise costs.
  • Consideration should also be given to the establishment of a body, for example, a representative user group of social scientists, who can adequately convey, agreed positions on a range of key issues, including purchases, distribution, electronic provision and funding. We would see ASSA as being a critical stakeholder in such a consultative framework.

In conclusion, I would like to end by saying, that as we are now operating in a competitive information world, there will be an increasing need for cooperation among providers and stakeholders. As such, we will need to ensure that whatever knowledge information management policy is developed, it will encompass the broader vision of the overall needs of the nation as a whole.


Return to Round Table Program

Last Updated 16 September 1998