RSA Conference Exhibitor List 2024 - Exhibitors Data
Preliminary results from digitisation survey
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. 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. 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. Respondents
44 institutions responded to the
survey although some gaps
24 Full Heron members (3
Packtracker only)
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Any questions?
Jane j.secker@lse.ac.uk
June j.hedges@ucl.ac.uk
Ned E.Potter@leeds.ac.uk