Search results

Christine Bruce (2008, Preface) has written extensively about informed learning. Informed learning is “using information, creatively and reflectively, in order to learn.” Bruce writes about informed learning as it relates to information literacy. Librarians, working collaboratively with professors, often develop research guides to teach information literacy skills, and to organize and present program, course, assignment, or topic-specific resources. Research is essential to documentary filmmaking. This chapter is a case study that describes how the History of Non-fiction Film Research Guide that we created aligns with the three principles and seven faces of informed learning.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the potential of film‐induced tourism to provide sustained economic contribution to destinations.

The paper takes the form of a literature review and identifies the economic contribution made by film‐induced tourism.

It is observed that film‐induced tourism only provides a sustained economic contribution to destinations in exceptional circumstances.

Destinations need to incorporate film as a functional component of their management. Managers need to focus on the subtle roles film plays in destination awareness, motivation, and image and expectation formation. This focus is best deployed in connecting film audiences with the destination, and tourist experiences available.

The paper questions the emphasis placed on film as a tourism‐inducing agent and at same time, illustrates that film has a subtle influence and this requires further emphasis by destination managers.

The National Film Archive (NFA) was established in 1935 to collect and preserve film. In the preceding decades the new medium was beginning to make its impact on society and the NFA was faced with the formidable task of preserving the nation's moving image heritage. With the passage of time more formats were developed and production increased, creating problems for the NFA and the other collections, especially regional and special archives, which had been established. As film, television and video grew in importance demands for greater access to archives and libraries increased as new user groups challenged the status quo. This paper reviews the trends in the collection and use of moving images during the fifty year period between 1935 and 1985, concentrating on non‐fiction material.

Aslib's annual report, which was considered at the Annual General Meeting in London on 7th June, made interesting reading and showed the association's steady progress. Membership is now 2,500, comprised chiefly of 922 industrial concerns, 221 Government departments and organisations, 295 public and national libraries and 301 universities and colleges. A point of interest is that there are only 403 individual members and this figure seems to be static having risen by only 5 in the last two years. Subscription income rose by £1,864 and Aslib's reserves are now £7,500. Some concern is expressed in the report about the finance of the Annual Conference, which showed a loss of £272. Many members are of the opinion that the conference fee is already too high, but the report suggests that rising costs may result in an even higher fee in the future.

The present state of film information is nothing short of chaotic. Individual organizations do sometimes keep records of films in their own fields of interest and occasionally publish these lists. The Educational Foundation for Visual Aids has catalogues of films of use in direct teaching; the Royal Institute of Chemistry has published a list of films on chemistry; the Scientific Film Association has published many catalogues on different subjects but these are restricted—because the Association lacks funds—to subjects on which another body is prepared to spend money. The British Film Institute has extensive records but these exist only in the form of its own card indexes and are available only at the Institute's premises. If information is to be wholly useful, it must be freely available and known to be available. The haphazard nature of current sources of film information makes it extremely difficult for the outsider to use them.

An account of the present ‘state of the art’ of the librarianship of non‐book materials must begin with a note on terminology. ‘Audiovisual materials’, ‘non‐print items’, and more imaginatively, ‘metabooks’, are some attempts at a collective description of film materials, sound recordings, and pictures of all kinds. The National Council for Educational Technology (NCET) favour ‘non‐book materials’, abbreviated to NBM. ‘One day, perhaps, the word “document” will be commonly accepted as connoting simply an embodiment of evidence, whether it be in print or pictures or whatever, and we shall take for granted that arrangements for the handling of documents should make provision as a matter of course for all media. In the meantime, the case must not be overlooked, and as an expression “non‐book material” is probably no more offensive and no less apt than its several rivals. “Non‐print document” is perhaps more accurate but is not yet in common use.’ I have adopted NBM.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the provision of audiovisual materials in UK public libraries and their economic value.

A questionnaire survey of all the public library authorities in the UK was used to investigate current provision of audiovisual material, expected future provision, and the amounts spent on and generated by audiovisual collections. Data collected, together with those available from other reputable sources, were then used to estimate the cost benefit or value of audiovisual provision.

The provision of audiovisual material in UK public libraries is widespread and varied. While audiovisual collections provide economic value and generate income from charging for loans, there are significant costs inherent in providing such services. Concerns are raised about the constant developments in media formats and the ability to make adequate provision. A cost benefit of 1:1.34 using the PVB (present value benefits) based on maximum loan charges was found, meaning that the UK gets £1.34 direct benefit from every £1.00 spent on the audiovisual service.

There are different methods used by economists to estimate value of public services, all having limitations. The method used in this research is no exception. The cost‐benefit ratio found is based on maximum loan charges. However, this figure would be higher if the PVB had been based on purchase costs or lower if the PVB had been based on mean loan charges. Further, the figures do not include indirect benefits or option benefits, so are likely to be underestimates of the true cost benefit of the audiovisual service.

This research is likely to be of interest to public library managers and funding bodies needing evidence for the value of audiovisual provision.

This is the first attempt to put a monetary value on audiovisual provision in the UK. It also provides insights into current and future audiovisual provision.