Overcoming Barriers: Access to Research Information Content. A UK Research Information Network Report

Citation

Brine, J. (2010), "Overcoming Barriers: Access to Research Information Content. A UK Research Information Network Report", Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 38 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ilds.2010.12238bae.001

Overcoming Barriers: Access to Research Information Content. A UK Research Information Network Report

Overcoming Barriers: Access to Research Information Content. A UK Research Information Network Report

Article Type: Review From: Interlending & Document Supply, Volume 38, Issue 2

December 2009,www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/overcoming-barriers-access-research-information(accessed 27 January 2010),

Keywords: Research, Information searches, Libraries

This RIN report builds on its work in RIN (2006) and RIN (2007) on researchers’ use of resource discovery services and of academic libraries and their services. It examines what has been called the “discovery-access gap”, i.e. what happens when research workers have identified resources they need but cannot get them through their own library. Using surveys and focus- groups, the study aims to give an impression of how often researchers cannot get what they need easily, how they try to get round the barriers in their way, and what impact this has on their work.

The detail of the report appears in five research reports:

1. 1.

   “How researchers secure access to licensed content not immediately available to them”.

2. 2.

   “Perspectives from libraries”.

3. 3.

   “How institutions manage access to information resources for non-members”.

4. 4.

   “Information access for members of research pools in Scotland”.

5. 5.

   “Non-cost barriers to accessing research resources”.

People working in interlending and document supply (IDS) will find the first research report particularly relevant. Researchers can waste significant amounts of time trying to access books and papers not available through their own library, and many believe that their inability to get the documents they need quickly – or not see them at all – has a detrimental effect on their work. Experience varies across the disciplines, but in some cases difficulties in accessing material leads researchers to abandon promising lines of enquiry, or to consciously compromise by using poorer quality resources. In any case, the flow of their work is disrupted. So how do they get material not available locally? Many use IDS of course, but they also purchase individual articles from publishers’; websites (pay-per-view), take out personal subscriptions, buy books themselves, email colleagues at other institutions to get document sent through and contact authors direct to beg a copy of a paper. Some, especially those in the Arts and Social Sciences, expect to travel to other libraries to make use of their books and print journals and, increasingly, hope to use other libraries’ electronic resources too. Some researchers – but far fewer than expected – will search institutional repositories to see if they can find an alternative form of the paper available through Open Access.

The report offers insights into why researchers cannot access what they want locally. Sometimes it is simply that their institution cannot afford to buy what they need; on other occasions, the journal may not be available electronically at all, or the years required have not been digitised yet.

Of more concern to librarians perhaps should be the admission from many of the respondents that they have missed material that is actually in their own library – either because of problems accessing electronic resources when off-campus or because of the complexity of library systems. (At Lancaster we find that up to 10 per cent of IDS requests are rejected because they are already in our library.) It is worth noting that even experienced researchers speak of their need for information discovery training, particularly when changing institutions.

So what do they say about IDS? Users reckon IDS is very effective – but they criticise it for being slow and bureaucratic. In many institutions, the cost of requests and the need to have requests countersigned or authorised is a big barrier. Others are unhappy at the limited amount of time they are allowed to keep a book, and restrictions placed on use (presumably material lent for library use only). There are also a few complaints about excessive delays and poor service. Clearly even though overall use of IDS is falling, it still has an important part to play in bridging the discovery-access gap. A number of recommendations are made which would affect IDS, including:

• •

  an institutional subsidy for pay-per-view;

• •

  elimination of IDS quotas;

• •

  simplifying ordering procedures;

• •

  more funding support for IDS charges;

• •

  speeding up the delivery process; and

• •

  greater digitisation.

Curiously, there is no specific call for the adoption of electronic signatures for copyright.

Findings on use of other libraries are interesting. Most people who have visited other institutions have been able to get to work on books and printed journals quickly and with a minimum of fuss. However, librarians would do well to consider the minority who have complaints about uninformative websites and unhelpful staff. Researchers in higher education are well served by reciprocal schemes, such as SCONUL Access or the research pools in Scotland, but there are concerns about library access for people in the NHS or the voluntary sector. People with no institutional affiliation can find it particularly difficult – and expensive – to use university libraries. One suggestion is for a register of independent researchers, who might be given access to university libraries without undue formality or fees. Using other libraries’ electronic resources was far more difficult for all researchers. Research Report 3 recognises libraries’ nervousness over provision for walk-in access, but picks out some examples of what can be done within publishers’ licences. They note other reasons why libraries may be reluctant to make their electronic resources available to visiting academics, such as lack of space, insufficient computer provision, staffing and IT issues.

The fifth Research Report, on non-cost barriers, gives a taste of the difficulties which researchers in different disciplines may experience due to commercial confidentiality, intellectual property restrictions, national security, and data available only in proprietary formats. Sometimes the materials they need to study are in private collections, and access may require long and painstaking negotiation. Other issues raised included poor digitisation, inadequate cataloguing especially in archives, and copyright problems. The findings are based on a small number of respondents, and are inevitably somewhat anecdotal, but the problems highlighted are very real.

This report provides a useful snapshot of barriers to accessing research information in the UK, chiefly in England. Many of the problems discussed – and the solutions proposed – will be relevant to any librarian who is interested in the wider question of how to overcome the gap between the researcher and the information they need.

Jenny BrineLancaster University Library, Lancaster, UK