Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Preliminary results from digitisation survey

1,342 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Preliminary results from digitisation survey

  1. 1. A Survey of Digitisation of Core Readings in Higher Education: preliminary results Jane Secker, June Hedges & Ned Potter Heron User Group Meeting 2nd July 2009
  2. 2. Context  Survey builds on those carried out by Liz Hart and Jenny Delasalle  New Comprehensive Licence  Timing: March - April 2009  Audience: Heron User Group members, but also LIS-Copyseek  Web-based survey
  3. 3. Survey topics 1. Background  Your institution  Digital readings at your institution  Copyright Licensing & compliance, incl. the new CLA Licence 2. Procedural Issues • Scanning • Delivery of readings • Management of readings 3. Wider Issues • Collection management • E-Learning
  4. 4. Respondents  44 institutions responded to the survey although some gaps  24 Full Heron members (3 Packtracker only)
  5. 5. Volume of digitisation  11 non-Heron members  Vast range in amount of digitisation from 20 - 2844 readings  563 average (mean)  Most anticipating a growth in numbers next year to an average of 866
  6. 6. Staffing levels  Variation from no staff to 5 or 6 in a team  18 had a dedicated team  19 did not have a dedicated team  A third had seen an increase in staffing to cope with demand but the majority (25 respondents) had not  Most promote their services (81%)
  7. 7. Motivations for scanning  Improve access to course readings: 37 (highest)  Support for e-learning: 31 (second highest)  Meeting student expectations: 22 (third highest)  Reduce need for multiple copies (save space): 13 (fourth highest)  Reduce need for multiple copies (save money): 8 (second lowest priority)  Raising the profile of your library: 6 (lowest priority)
  8. 8. CLA Licence  All apart from one respondent had signed the new CLA Licence  Only two had signed the comprehensive licence  Most regularly consult the CLA website (76% said they did)  65% (20 institutions) of all respondents saying it was ‘quite useful’ (only 3 people said they found it very useful and the remainder were indifferent)  15 institutions were using Packtracker for data reporting, 20 were using a central record sheet, 1 gets departs to complete, 2 using another method
  9. 9. Impact of the New Licence  Common themes include increase in workload as a greater amount of material is being scanned  Number of customers using HEI’s various digitisation services has widely increased  Almost everyone mentioned the addition of the US publishers as having a major impact  A few noted savings made due to no longer having to copyright-clear items
  10. 10. Impact on Paper Services  Harder to quantify; often the library isn’t the keeper of relevant photocopying statistics  General feeling is that paper copies may be reducing, but in line with general University policy rather than as a direct result of the Licence  A few libraries are trying to digitise their short-loan collections, but this is proving harder than anticpated
  11. 11. Licence Repertoire  Of 34 respondents, 31 said they’d like to see the repertoire increased, 2 said they saw no need for that, and 1 didn’t know  However, HEIs had extremely varied suggestions as to which countries should be included
  12. 12. Licence Repertoire (2) Regions HEIs would like to see included in the Licence Also mentioned 7 once each: 6 • Far East 5 • Japan 4 • France 3 • Spain 2 • South Africa 1 • “All English 0 Speaking Countries” nd via a da s y n lia an di nd ea na la ra na In m la op Ire st Ca da er er Au ur th G an lE Ne Sc Al
  13. 13. Copyright issues  Do you get copyright permissions outside the licence - 11 / 38 responses did not (20%)  The rest did, using: Heron (16), publishers (16) and the CCC (10) in the US  24 institutions have a copyright officer, 13 do not and one respondent wasn’t sure  LIS-Copyseek used by 35/38 respondents for queries, CLA consulted (29) colleagues (26), Copyright Officer (12)
  14. 14. Scanning  Who does your scanning?  In-house - 17  Outsource - 6  Both - 15  Other – 1  29 respondents said they outsourced to:  British Library (14)  Heron (11)  Other  13 respondents create text files, 23 do not and 3 didn’t know if they did!
  15. 15. Scanning (2)  Do you provide text for visually impaired students?  Yes 21  No 10  Don’t know 7  Source of scan  Original source 30 / 38  Photocopy 20 / 38  Copyright fee paid copies 34 / 38  Other 1  84% do NOT have a limit on the number of requests a lecturer can place for scans
  16. 16. Rejecting requests  The question “Do you digitise all readings you are asked to?” got the biggest response of all the ‘free text’ questions – key issue  Very few digitise all items requested to the extent of always obtaining clearance where necessary  Large proportion only scan what is eligible under the Licence; they do not typically copyright clear  Many take a mixed approach: “If the request falls outside the CLA Licence then a discussion is held with the academics as to whether we progress their request to the HERON service (at a cost)”  Some have an annual limit, either overall or per department / module
  17. 17. Delivery of readings  Via catalogue 1  Via reading list 11  Via VLE 36 / 39  Other 4  Readings tend to be stored on library server or in VLE although some institutions store in more than one place
  18. 18. Management and feedback  Reading lists generally updated by library staff, less frequently by academic and admin staff  15 of our respondents used Packtracker to manage the process, more had no system, although 6 had an in-house system  Requests for digitisation almost always came from academic staff, although subject librarians were sometimes involved  Only 14 respondents collected usage stats of readings (21 did not)  Only 5 respondents collect feedback on the service in their library survey
  19. 19. Responding to Usage Stats  Of those who did collect usage statistics, only 3 currently act upon them  Several say ‘not yet’ or ‘we intend to’, but it seems a tricky area – “We would [take action based on usage stats] if we could get the stats from Blackboard (sore topic!)”
  20. 20. Collection management and e- resources  74% said their collection management policy took into account e-books  Similar numbers check e-book availability before scanning  23 respondents would scan an e-book if they received a request but only 3 would scan a journal  27 respondents said e-availability impacted on paper collections
  21. 21. E-learning / VLEs  All institution had a VLE  30/39 library staff had access to it  In only 4 cases were other permissions for other (e.g. AV materials) managed by the library
  22. 22. Further Issues Issues raised in free text question at the end include:  “Number of scans created is beginning to get unmanageable in terms of renewals”  “Some staff would like to incorporate materials into complex learning objects…”  Many practitioners are finding work-load a problem, due to taking it on in addition to current roles rather than as a dedicated team  “Managing digital readings is demanding, and requires extra staffing to do it properly”
  23. 23. Further Issues (2)  The issues of time, ongoing funding, difficulty of CLA reporting and problems of copyright compliance come up time and again  All these problems are exacerbated by up-scaling of each library’s digitisation service – even if there not a concerted effort to increase through-put, just reusing items year on year means the time / reporting / staffing burdens are always increasing
  24. 24. Any questions?  Jane j.secker@lse.ac.uk  June j.hedges@ucl.ac.uk  Ned E.Potter@leeds.ac.uk

×