Researchers' Use of Academic Libraries
A new report has been published by the Research Information Network (RIN) and the Consortium of Research Libraries (CURL): Researchers' Use of Academic Libraries and their Services [pdf format]. This is based on information gathered from more than 2,000 UK researchers and 300 librarians. After being somewhat critical in an earlier post about the RIN's Researchers and Discovery Services report, I feel honour-bound to record here that this report is much more comprehensive and well-written. Its authors are Sheridan Brown and Alma Swan of Key Perspectives Ltd. The report covers a number of areas, including the impact of digital services, problems of attracting enough funding, communication between library staff and researchers, and changing patterns of use.
Archive services within academic libraries get a number of mentions, with the interesting statistic that:Archives are rated "very useful" by 50% of arts and humanities researchers and special collections by 46%. By comparison the figures for life science researchers are 10% and 8%.Really? 10% of life scientists find archives "very useful"? Wow! The report also noted that:
Most researchers use digital finding aids to locate both digital and print-based resources. Print finding aids are used by very few researchers, and these are mainly in the arts and humanities. This highlights the need for libraries to ensure that they provide online high-quality metadata for their holdings, and that they address cataloguing backlogs. Information resources that cannot be found electronically may well be overlooked, since few researchers will invest the time required to track down items that cannot be quickly be identified using digital finding aids.And in the same vein:
Libraries have made significant efforts to optimise the visibility and usage of their archival or special collection material through digitisation programmes. Feedback from researchers is very positive, but many information resources that could be useful to researchers remain under-used currently, mainly because they exist only in hardcopy or are inadequately catalogued.and:
...material that is digitised and for which there is easily-available and accurate metadata will be visible and usable by scholars. What remains in print may well be sought out, but probably only if it is digitally catalogued. Indeed, some researchers as well as librarians pointed out that more use would be made of library holdings overall – especially special collection materials – if they were all properly and accurately catalogued so that resource discovery tools could locate them effectively. Librarians acknowledge that there is much to be done in this area, but cite inadequate resources – time and staff expertise – as the cause of cataloguing backlogs and deficiencies.I suppose that I would like to have seen the occasional mention of archivists in the report - especially as one of the 'key roles for future librarians' identified by all participants was to be custodians of archives and special collections. But that is only a minor gripe. What would be really good would be to see this recognition of the funding deficiencies and the importance of access to digital information about archives (even to life scientists) translated into a funding programme to help in the continuing task of converting hard-copy archive catalogues into electronic form and to start work on the huge backlog of uncatalogued materials. Or the community could just pay for another report to be written on the subject instead... ;-)
Labels: cataloguing, funding, libraries, reports
posted by Amanda at 9:06 pm
3 Comments:
I'm glad you found the report helpful, even though the primary focus, of course, is libraries and their services, as distinct from archives.
The reason for doing the study has been to produce an evidence base on which we can help to influence the development of library services for the future; and we are going to be working over the coming weeks and months with a series of key stakeholders on the lessons and implications we can draw from the study, with that end in view. And one of the issues that we perhaps need to look at might relate to the services that libraries provide in their stewardship of archives, alongside many other kinds of more traditional library materials.
We'll be discussing the findings presensted in the report and their implications at a workshop on 30 April in London. Perhaps you'd like to come.
Yes, I also thought the report was worthwhile and well presented, in particular the section about digitising archives. However, Amanda's 'minor gripe' about the non-mention of archivists was for me a bigger issue. It was curious to me that librarians see one of their biggest core roles in the future as being custodians of archives and special collections. I don't object to this, as clearly it is a good thing that archives are seen to be important. However, I would have thought it would be constructive to talk about librarians working with archivists, who are after all the experts in this particular area. Building relationships and communication between the two domains seems to me to offer the best way forward. I appreciate the report was written from a library perspective, but I do think the work of archivists should be acknowledged.
As a former archivist, I am all too aware of the differences between the demands of looking after manuscipts and archives on the one hand, and books and journals on the other. And it seems to me that the skills and expertise of archivists are more in demand than ever before.
One of the key challenges, of course, is to develop greater awareness and understanding among members of the research community as to how it is that the various information resources that are relevant to their research are made available to them; and as to the expertise that underpins the services on which they depend. And members of the different segments of the library and information community perhaps also need to understand more about the broad range of service requirements that come with different kinds of content. That's perhaps one of the implications of the report that we need to discuss.
Post a Comment
<< Home