Libraries without Walls 4: the Delivery of Library Services to Distant Users. Proceedings of an International Conference held on 14‐18 September 2001, in Molivos, Greece

Citation

McGrath, M. (2002), "Libraries without Walls 4: the Delivery of Library Services to Distant Users. Proceedings of an International Conference held on 14‐18 September 2001, in Molivos, Greece", Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/ilds.2002.30.4.210.1

I have organised conferences myself and hence admire the dedication of Peter Brophy and his team at CERLIM. Not only is this the 4th conference in the series “Libraries without walls”, but they have produced with FACET the publisher, a handsome hard back in what must be near record time for conventional publishing. The conference took place in September 2001 and the book was in my hands by May 2002. With 42 contributors from seven countries this is truly a formidable performance.

The tide of enthusiasm and hype for the all‐electronic library has ebbed, leaving not a few dead and dying fish on the beach. Thus it is pleasing to read, the editors state clearly in the introduction, that “the reality is that most libraries in developed countries – and many elsewhere – now operate as ‘hybrid’ services, relying on a managed mix of electronic and traditional ‘information objects’ to deliver appropriate services to their clients”. A key task for contemporary libraries is this, to organise the cost effective delivery to their users of electronic material, whether born digital or converted from print, combined with conventional physical access to and delivery of printed material. But what must also be integrated is material not held by the library; material which is either delivered through ad hoc co‐operation or by paid for ILL and document delivery. As far as I can see only Ross McIntyre addresses this explicitly, although it is implicit in many of the other papers. It is perhaps a weakness that the central driver of ILL and docdel, that no library can hold all the material that its users want is insufficiently acknowledged and hence not more explicitly addressed.

In this review I have only considered those papers that relate to the concerns of this journal’s readers. These concerns are broader today than in the past. The distinction between a document downloaded by an end user “free” from a subscribed to journal and one that has been obtained through a document delivery process is not as clear cut as in the past and will become even less so with the development of departmental credit cards and seamless document delivery to end users.

There is enormous pressure from national governments to deliver library services to distant users, if only for one perception, that it appears to be dramatically cheaper than conventional libraries. A perception not shared by at least one contributor, Sarah Currier, who states in her realistic paper (p. 57) that: “Top management needs to understand that developments in ‘e’ learning are not cost savers, and may require additional resources to be implemented effectively”.

With student numbers increasing and budgets being cut in terms of expenditure per student, this pressure is increasing. However, the positive tone of the introduction to the paper must be qualified by the actual practice of distance learning. The Guardian carried a piece on 2 April this year which identified serious reservations about the future of e‐based distance learning and the slow rate of take up.

Julie Brett describes the Distance Learning Zone project which supports students studying across national boundaries. The British Council, with 220 libraries, acts as an “information broker” between the student and the UK university with which the student is studying. Back‐up material is provided by the BLDSC and it is fascinating to learn that “all existing learners expressed an overwhelming need to access more resources than those provided by the university, along with 91 per cent of new learners, even when their course material states that they do not need access to a library” [my emphasis]. Specifically, 52 per cent of all students thought that they would use “interlibrary loan and document supply”. One wonders how widespread this demand could be, or is it that this particular cohort is especially dedicated? Evaluation of the service is still taking place but it is an exciting attempt to address the needs of transnational students defined as, “a learner enrolled on a course offered by an institution in another country”. On a larger scale, Chambers and McLoughlin describe the University of London’s external programme which “offers over 100 qualifications … to over 28,000 students in more than 180 countries”. They describe a new service, the Virtual Campus Project, which contains a virtual library service (VLS). “The laws programme will be the first set of qualifications with resources in VLS”. Access will be given to Justis.com but no reference is made to document delivery back‐up other than the possible need for copyright cleared articles. (An experiment at BLDSC which supported a programme at the Open University in 1999 with such article showed a very poor take‐up, mainly because of the high price.). It may be that law students are richer than others but integrated access to document supply using the Library Privilege option will surely be necessary if the demand suggested by Brett is to be satisfied.

McCann’s paper on the digitisation of the Los Angeles Comprehensive Bibliographic Database paradoxically highlights the issue of document delivery without actually addressing it. The aim of the project described was to combine two print bibliography volumes of resources related to the study of Los Angeles and Southern California into one comprehensive electronic edition. A project of inestimable benefit to the appropriate students and researchers, but only if they can then easily access the material quoted.

Kibbee and Waley (p. 65) found that remote users at the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign were usually unaware of the range of offerings available and “speculate that this is the result of poor Web design and insufficient promotion and marketing”. Two aspects of their paper are of interest to ILL and docdel practitioners. The first describes how material is scanned and posted to the Web site. This service is called UIUC DOCExpress (www.library.uiucedu/irrc/feephoto.htm) and is fee based – “£1.35 for faculty and £2.25 for students”. The second describes the process when the university does not hold the material requested – “users can request articles from journals not held in our collections via the ILL Web site and there is no charge made”, items are “posted to the central server for the user to view”.

Roberts and Davey, in their paper “Virtual learning environments and information services”, quote a figure of 0.98 per cent of 100 undergraduates in their first year using electronic journals rising to 3.87 per cent in later years. This “pitifully low usage” does underline the problem of distance learning and electronic resources; and must cause concern for the most enthusiastic supporters.

Watkins and Bentley title their paper ambitiously – “Copyright made interesting”. The EU directive of course receives most attention and they rightly note the worrying trend of contract law replacing copyright law; particularly and potentially, the “exceptions”, many of which have a direct bearing on the ability of libraries to provide a cost‐effective document delivery service (Judy Watkins will be writing two pieces specifically on this issue in forthcoming issues of ILDS).

The one paper that is entirely relevant to document delivery interest is an excellent one by MacIntyre and Apps, which describes a project with which this writer was closely involved; ZETOC – “a Z39.50 compliant version of the ETOC database” – a British Library database built from the article headers of the most used 20,000 journals at BLDSC.

“The ultimate aim is to develop an alerting service to enable it to link seamlessly with document ordering systems and integrate with other current awareness mechanisms.” Users can obtain documents from their own institution, for example if it has an electronic subscription to the requested journal. Failing this they can obtain the article directly from BLDSC or indirectly via their local library. They describe the development of the service clearly and concisely, as well as its future direction.

Conclusion

E‐based learning is bound to grow, given the economic imperative of the perceived low cost per user and the political imperative to increase the numbers in higher education – at least in the UK. The Italian government, for example, is doing its best to reduce the numbers of students at Italy’s universities. We know already that access to current awareness and full text resources actually stimulates demand for even more material (although how people find the time to read it all baffles me). In theory more remote users means more document delivery, but against this must be set the growth in site licensing which diminishes the demand for docdel (by about 10 per cent at BLDSC). The Ingenta Institute’s research study on the impact of e‐journals should be of great interest.

What struck me particularly is the vast range of projects that are being funded and the conflicting conclusions that emerge. As an ex‐marketing person I tend to agree with Kibbee and Waley that marketing combined with clear and simple Web design will go a long way to increasing usage of electronic resources.

This collection of papers is a must for any library that is concerned with the delivery of service to remote users.