Researchers’ Use of Libraries and Other Information Sources: Current Patterns and Future Trends. Final Report

Citation

Line, M.B. (2003), "Researchers’ Use of Libraries and Other Information Sources: Current Patterns and Future Trends. Final Report", Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 154-155. https://doi.org/10.1108/02641610310477242

Numerous studies have been conducted into the information needs and uses of researchers; some of the more recent ones are included in the bibliography to this report, while most of the older ones have been rendered obsolete by the advent of the Internet. This study (which is restricted to researchers in the UK) was commissioned by the Research Support Libraries Group. A sample of 3,390 researchers was used, supplemented by additional samples from Wales and Northern Ireland and junior postgraduate researchers. The overall response rate was 45 per cent. In addition to a literature review, the methods used were a major questionnaire survey and some focus groups. This review will be especially concerned with aspects of the report that relate to remote access.

It must, however, first be said that the findings offer some comfort to librarians, and some discomfort. Books appear to have an “overwhelming importance” for researchers across all subjects, not merely the humanities and social sciences. Physical access to libraries is viewed as important obviously in the humanities, but also by most scientists. Browsing too is valued, overall by 40 per cent (ranging from 62 per cent in area studies and languages to 16 per cent in the sciences). Library services are also valued by most, including many who apparently do not realise that some services they use (e.g. online access to articles) are provided by the library. Their home library, together with their personal collection, is overwhelmingly the most information provider across all subjects – more in fact for scientists than for humanities researchers, who need to have access to other sources. Local catalogues too are very heavily used. However, libraries are less highly valued when it comes to enquiry and research assistance; and scientists in particular see little if any need for training in online searching.

“Focus groups”, we are told, “indicated some confusion among researchers about the terms ‘inter‐library lending’ … and document delivery” – hardly surprising, since librarians exhibit the same confusion. Access to remote sources is almost universally recognised as essential, whether by “conventional” services or by online access to articles. Interestingly, but not very surprisingly, there appears to be a strong preference for printed copies as well as electronic access. As for the nature of non‐local information resources, other university libraries are used by 38 per cent overall, and the British Library by 36 per cent; other sources come a long way behind. The proportion using the British Library ranges from 6 per cent in area studies and languages to 27 per cent in the social sciences, lower than in the sciences. (This is not the only place in the report where I felt the need for a subdivision of “social sciences”; some areas, like econometrics, are “hard” and approximate to the sciences, whereas others, such as sociology, are “soft” – or at any rate softer – and are more like some humanities subjects.) “What is not clear”, I was astonished to read, “about these results (concerning the importance to researchers of the British Library) is whether this indicates the essentialness of actual visits to the British Library or of its inter library loan and document delivery services.” Why was such an obvious and important question not asked? The same applies to the use of other libraries: no distinction is made between visits and remote use, although the two kinds of use are very different in their nature and implications.

As for the future, it is entirely predictable that online sources will become more important. Museums and archives, at present very little used, may also be used more, though here again no distinction is made between visits and remote use (by means of visual representations, etc.).

Among the recommendations are “a detailed review and needs analysis … in the area of skills up‐grading and awareness‐raising for researchers” and “a detailed and critical review of the appropriateness of library services … in the light of the current and changing requirements of researchers”. Stress is laid on the “paramount” importance of “comprehensive online catalogues of nationally distributed research holdings … linked to efficient, fast and effective inter library loan and document delivery services”. No one would dispute this, but the report might have recognised that the UK is ahead of the rest of the world in such services, and that there may be good reasons why improvement beyond a certain point is not easy.

Like most surveys, the findings of this study mostly confirm what we already knew, and hold few surprises. It is always nice to have one’s beliefs confirmed, and this particular survey may lay to rest some prejudices, for example the idea that books are becoming less important. I wish, however, to make one point. The report’s concern is solely with researchers, as was required by the terms of reference. But universities exist to serve students as much as researchers; allocation of resources to their libraries tends to favour research needs already, since students have little or no say in the process. As a result, journals have tended to absorb more and more of the budget at the expense of books. There is some danger that this trend might accelerate. Why do we have so many studies aimed at research needs and so very few at student needs? Please can something be done to address this imbalance?

Whatever qualities the survey researchers possessed, a reasonable standard of literacy is not among them. There are several instances of incorrect spelling, bad grammar and ugly English.