94bibliotheques

II. Les bibliothèques universitaires du Royaume Uni

[British University Libraries]

By Derek G Law

[This is a translation of an article published in French in 1990. It appeared as a chapter in the book:

Les Bibliotheques dans l’Universite, sous la direction de Daniel Renoult

Paris: Editions du Cercle de la Librairie, 1994. ISBN: 2765405484

pp.299-307 ]

Recent History

After a decade a growth maintained despite insufficient funding, the universities of the United Kingdom have now entered a period of instability. Numbering almost one hundred institutions, they face very different realities, whether one talks of the ancient universities dating from the Middle Ages, such as those of Oxford, Cambridge or Scotland, or the schools of technology promoted to the status of universities in 1992. In this article, the term “ancient” universities describes universities bearing that title prior to 1970, and “new” universities those which, like the schools of technology (polytechnics) and other colleges, have become universities since 1992.

The most striking characteristic of British higher education is perhaps the much smaller proportion of young people aged eighteen compared with the situation which prevails in all other developed countries. This rigorous selection process guarantees on the other hand that the majority of students admitted to university leave with a degree, so that the proportion of graduates in the population is the same as in other major countries. The government has taken the decision to increase the number of admissions, with the objective of increasing student numbers to about half of young people by the end of the century. Only a small budgetary increase was unblocked for this expansion and universities are today suffering enormous financial constraints. The consequential quality of teaching arising from this fact is a major issue. Many signs lead one to think that universities are splitting into three groups: institutions giving priority to teaching; institutions giving priority to research and “mixed” institutions offering many disciplines but with research limited to a few domains. The first group is essentially formed from the “new” universities coming from the technical education sector.

The users

The classic scheme of British higher education assumes that students leave secondary education at the age of eighteen to enter university where they gain their licentiate (Bachelor of Arts degree) after three years of study. In Scotland, however, in principle they study for four years to gain a masters (Master of Arts degree). A tiny proportion of these students then continue to undertake a taught masters degree or a thesis, with the British tradition of selective recruitment meaning a tiny percentage of admissions reach the higher levels.

Study is partially financed by the state and, after the spectacular growth of the 1960’s, the number of students has continued to show modest but steady growth. Two trends are at work in the British system of higher education. Firstly, the number and proportion of students has not stopped growing, moving from 39.8% of the cohort in 1980-1981 to 45.1% in 1990-1991 (these numbers apply to the “ancient” universities); as to the division of students amongst the different disciplines, they are made up as follows: 46.5% in Arts and Humanities, 41.9% in Science, 7.9% in Medicine and Odontostomatology, 3.8% in mixed subjects. The second notable fact rests in the constant rise in the number of students in paid employment. The government has specifically encouraged this process by introducing flexibility in the curriculum, for example allowing the possibility of gaining diplomas by modules. In 1992 for the first time, the number of part-time students exceeded the number of full-time students.

Organisation and Methods

The universities of the United Kingdom are in theory independent, even if only the University of Buckingham is in the literal sense a private university. The government allocates them a global budget, which passes through an intermediary organisation, the Council for the Funding of Universities or UFC (Universities Funding Council). This body redistributes the funds amongst the universities, based on the volume of their teaching and research. Research quality is also controlled – and to a certain extent financially sanctioned – by evaluation criteria applied to each institution.

In April 1993, the UFC was replaced by several funding bodies given national roles for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and able to respond to political pressures in the different regions. But the main ambition, that government should not intervene directly in the allocation of resources will be maintained. In that regard it should be emphasised that universities are encouraged to seek external funding: the research funds of the European Commission, the regional research agencies, private sponsorship and benefactions contribute resources and are already an important element in university budgets, thereby offering a certain independence from the State.

This position explains why university libraries are financed from their tuition fees, at the discretion of the university. As a general rule, this is about 4% of the institutional budget, representing close to two million pounds sterling for a mid-range university. It is more and more common for library management to be given a single budget line to use as they see fit. In most cases, 55-65% of these funds are used to meet personnel costs. Custom and practice also dictates that departments bear a share of general costs (space charges, heating, lighting) in order to make financial estimates more realistic. Some institutions are experimenting with formulas which return library funding to departments which must then negotiate a contract with the library. These last are most likely equitably to divide costs amongst the different departments, with the library then becoming as universal as the university is itself.

The most common current practice consists of calculating finance in relation to research costs in the institution with the aim of keeping an even balance between each domain. The concept of an information access strategy or information ownership is however familiar and a growing number of libraries is realising that it is not necessary to possess information in order to assure its dissemination. In some sectors it is better to build collections (an ownership strategy); in others it is sufficient to link collections dedicated to teaching with the ability to borrow resources through interlending (an access strategy).

With some rare exceptions, all the libraries in the same university are managed by a central service. If some campuses opened in the 1960’s possess a large central library, the norm today is an explosion of different units. Libraries all operate on the basis of free and open access, save in the case of rare books and special collections, the importance of which varies from institution to institution. All are equipped with automated cataloguing and circulation systems which use UKMARC and AACR2. Library of Congress Classification and the Dewey system are most commonly employed. As to automated systems, those most often used are GEAC, DYNIX and CLSI, as well as those created in the United Kingdom by BLCMP and SLS (Libertas). In this regard, and despite their renaming, some specialised libraries are an exception, most notably in the case of the School of Oriental and African Studies, the British Library of Political and Economic Science, the library of the Warburg Institute and several others. The libraries of both Oxford and Cambridge universities are legal deposit libraries and receive a supplementary grant for this reason. Finally, a certain number of the great university libraries such as those of Manchester or Edinburgh have a role and responsibilities which are effectively regional, roles which have every chance of being confirmed by the committee charged with reporting on libraries.

Staffing

Library staff fall into two groups: librarians attached to the university and backroom staff. The first group are recruited on the basis of their qualifications. They possess either a bachelor’s degree in librarianship or else a university degree in another subject and a diploma in librarianship. No degree is required for other technical staff, but it is normal practice that those in charge of a service, such as lending services or inter-library loans for example, possess the professional qualifications which would allow them to be promoted to a higher rank. Such posts are systematically filled by open competition. Librarians generally enjoy favourable status and receive the same treatment as teaching staff. Library Directors are usually considered as major figures in the university and their post is often specifically mentioned in the charter of the institution. Whether or not this is the case there is no doubt that they hold a senior position. If the composition of staff varies from one university to another, as a general rule responsibility falls on the chief librarian, the deputy librarian, three to five librarians and ten to twenty technical staff, to which may be added a further fifty backroom staff.

The division of tasks within the library falls either by subject or by service, but there are also many hybrid services. Subject division assumes that the tasks are subordinate to language or disciplinary knowledge. Very popular in the 1960s and 1970s, this structure is now less favoured, the reduction in numbers of qualified librarians restricts the ability to provide posts with subject responsibility. The trend is, as a result, to return to a services based organisation. Here staff are divided between the traditional sectors, on the one hand technical services and on the other reader services. For some years the growth of automation of tasks, most notably cataloguing has been translated into a rapid diminution of qualified librarians in technical services. On the other hand, there has been a growth in numbers employed in reader services who require particular skills especially in automated services where technical skills are required, for example with CD-Rom.

To ensure that all staff are of a sufficient level of ability, the government has imposed a requirement on universities to assess this. As a result, all university staff, and by extension librarians working in universities, are invited annually to a meeting with their head of service. The universities must assess individual training needs and also set goals and objectives for the following twelve months. Salaries are fixed according to a national scale, but a small additional element is available to management to recognise and reward exceptional individual performance.

Another source of preoccupation has arrived recently with what has become known as the “convergence” of libraries and computer services. Some institutions, for now a small but growing number, have grouped together under a single management the library, information services and the computing service. Some of them see this movement as a prelude to some kind of merging of activity. The growing importance of information services, steadily enlarges the growing field of overlapping services and leads one to suppose that these overlaps will steadily multiply.

Co-operation

University libraries have a long tradition of co-operation. The existence of the British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC) at Boston Spa has at times hindered the formation of interlending networks between libraries, but such co-operation is above all exercised at local level. The universities based in large conurbations often choose to work together. One can but cite the remarkable examples of Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield.

The latest large grouping of libraries has the acronym CURL (Consortium of University Research Libraries) and brings together the seven most important university libraries in the country (Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, London, Manchester, Oxford). To date its principal achievement is the creation of a shared catalogue database. Beyond this, the seven members have integrated records from the British Library and North American institutions: in particular, an agreement has been reached for data sharing with OCLC. Other UK university libraries have access to this information.

One should also mention a grouping of the Scottish university libraries. United in having a teaching system which differs from that in England, they have begun to develop several co-operative projects in the field of automation.

Networks

The JANET (Joint Academic Network) Network is an important harmonising factor between libraries. This communications network was put in place in 1986 by the Computer Board, a government organisation charged with the purchase of software and the provision of a network for universities and research institutes. Thanks to this initiative, the so-called ancient universities are now all connected to well-developed networks which allow them to undertake many types of activity. The so-called new universities on the other hand have chosen not to receive a smaller annual budget and so have neither participated in the JANET project nor contributed to its funding. Also they have less advanced computing equipment, which often hinders their wish to co-operate. Librarians have been quick to see the potential advantages of JANET and of the group of libraries which form the JUGL (JANET User Group for Libraries) network, which was set up to promote the interests of libraries with the team managing the network, the Joint Network Team. Both directly and indirectly JANET lies behind several success stories. Project JUPITER aimed at informing libraries on how best to utilise JANET is managed at the University of Glasgow: an ad hoc organisation to advise libraries on networking – UKOLN (UK Office for Library Networking) was created at the University of Bath and is now the main research body in this sector. Finally, information services (news, announcements, lists of addresses) were put in place, noticeably the Bulletin Board for Librarians (BUBL).

Taking action on datasets, a national strategy was put in place starting in 1990, when the Computer Board was persuaded to discuss with the Institute for Scientific Information the possibility of concluding a contract for the dissemination of its data. The most delicate issue was the central funding of the project with State funds, so that users were able to have free access. Time was not spent on dithering over long term risks, but spent on facilitating access to the systems by end users and the means to put all of this in place. The contract was swiftly negotiated and a call was made to the universities to see which of them might host the service. The task was on a major scale, because the files created in the previous ten years represented a volume exceeding 40 Gigabits.

The contract was awarded to the University of Bath, whose information services were involved from the very conception of the programme. Its success surpassed all expectations. Created in 1992, the system, which attracted 20 users a day in the first week, now attracts over 3000 users a week and forecasts lead one to believe that this growth will continue at the same rate. Today, it is not unusual to have one hundred simultaneous users. A second dataset, EMBASE, was then added; negotiations are under way to add a third and it is already being discussed, but without specific targets, whether yet more should be added.

From the beginning, the system designers used surveys to determine the choice of products to be purchased. Thus, they systematically assembled a large list of desiderata, and it quickly became evident that the very existence of the list put them in a strong negotiating position.

The successful provision of the Institute for Scientific Information database, soon offered new perspectives on the objectives to be fulfilled. Current policy expects to acquire some twenty resources over the next five years, with the following goals:

- Free at the point of use

- Using common retrieval software wherever possible

- The system to be available to university staff and students at all levels

- The costs of gaining data access to be shared between the State and institutions

- Coverage of every discipline by commercially available products

- The creation of 3-5 national centres charged with creating a distribution network

- There should not be dependency on a single type of product

Current issues

The growth in student numbers has led to a sort of crisis in the availability of printed materials for students. Also, the separate Higher Education Funding Councils individual funding mechanisms led to the creation of a libraries review committee, tasked with considering these issues and formulating recommendations. Consisting of librarians, senior academics and the vice-chancellors of several universities, the committee has launched an enquiry to discover the level of library acquisitions and has begun to reflect on major issues such as the changing role of these establishments and what co-operation exists at local level.

Other delicate issues relate to the strategic choices of institutions made at a local level. It is the case that performance evaluation and the use of metrics have opened up a fundamental debate. By the same token library strategies and their links to institutional teaching strategies occupy an important place. There is also a wish to scientifically test decision making processes.

The price of periodicals is rising at a worrying rate. In this regard British university librarians are trying to co-operate with their European and American colleagues to find other ways of addressing the issue with the journal editors. Alongside their traditional roles and duties, librarians are actively seeking to find new forms of scholarly communication which are more flexible than those currently required by scientific periodicals.

Preoccupations of a different sort apply to methods of finance, and in particular to the production of income. Some universities are experimenting with a solution which consists of allocating a budget to each academic department and then requiring the library to act as their service provider. Many universities have adopted a policy of generating income by selling diverse products such as photocopy cards; the benefits resulting from this can raise as much as 10% of the overall budget. Otherwise there is an increasing pressure to distinguish between basic services and value added services, the former being free and the latter charged for. This policy seems preferable to the random charging of a small contribution to put towards the cost of such activities as inter-library lending or on-line searching.

Annexe

Statistics relating to British University Libraries

The promotion to university status of the polytechnics has somewhat complicated the establishment of statistics. The gathering of statistics has been done to different base rules and the two groups have used quite different methods of calculation. The figures given below are therefore more approximate than exact. The number of libraries itself cannot be given with absolute certainty, for it depends on the method of counting adopted by the federal universities of London and Wales.

Document 65. Key statistics relating to British University Libraries

Number of institutions 92

Registered students (in 1991) 812,000

Qualified Librarians 2213

Total number of library staff 5124

Library expenditure * £173,690,000

Divided as:

- Staff £ 96,340,000

- Books £ 24,372,000

- Periodicals £ 32,298,000

- Binding £ 3,457,000

- Miscellaneous £ 17,222,000

*This figure does not take into account capital expenditure on either physical space or computer systems. Further, there are no numbers available on the funding of programme development, whether by the government or the institution itself

Total volumes in collections 58,000,000

Annual acquisition of volumes 1,000,000

Annual volume of inter-library loans 670,000

Annual number of loans 25,000,000

It should be clear that expenses relating to networks are financed by the State, and none of these costs are charged to libraries. Moreover, the statistics clearly demonstrate that the sums devoted to book purchase are steadily dropping, while the proportion spent on periodicals is a growing strain on budgets