David Gee
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
• The response rate was 84.82%; very good, and near the record of 85.4% (section 3);
• There are increases in the number of old and new universities enrolling PhD and MPhil students (section 5);
• Sixteen percent of respondents (up from 9% in 2010) failed to meet the SLS Statement of Standards 3.1 on space and physical facilities, through not housing all relevant collections in one place (section 6);
• The three most popular law databases in terms of number of subscriptions continued to be Westlaw UK, Lexis®Library and HeinOnline. But there was still great fluidity in the range of subscriptions held, for 19% of respondents were considering cancelling a subscription to an electronic source before the end of July 2012 whilst 17% were considering a new subscription before the same date (section 7);
• Clearly many institutions are carefully analysing where similar materials can be obtained at lesser or no cost. Respondents mentioned in particular some of the Justis products such as The Law Reports and Weekly Law Reports coming under scrutiny (section 7);
• All bar one legal database was accessed via the internet (i.e. one respondent accessed CLI via CD-ROM). The transfer from CD-ROM to the internet has been rapid and is now almost complete. In 1999 just 32% of legal databases were internet based (section 7);
• JSTOR overtook the ISI Web of Science service to become the most widely used general database (section 8);
• Mean expenditure decreased by 3% across all respondents on the level in 2010. Whilst old universities reported a modest decrease in mean expenditure (down by less than 1% on 2010), new universities reported an increase (up 3.7% on 2010) and other types of institutions reported a 3.1% fall (section 9.1);
• Mean expenditure on law materials per student in old universities was £219 (down 2% on 2010) whereas in new universities it was £213 (a 12% increase on 2010). The pattern in this area is therefore of a narrowing gap between sectors (section 9.1).
• The proportion of total law material expenditure on monographs was down slightly at 21%, serials were down to its lowest ever at 50% and databases up again at 29% (section 9);
• Separate results on overall expenditure on law library materials in institutions not providing vocational or professional award courses are provided (section 9.6);
• The highest proportion of income to fund the acquisition of law materials continued to come from general library funds (section 10);
• Over 57% of all law schools made no contribution to funding the acquisition of law materials, a higher percentage than in past years. Moreover, of those that did, they appeared to do so less generously with the mean amount contributed by law schools at new universities decreasing by 7% and the mean amount contributed by law schools at old universities decreasing by 30% (section 10);
• Overall staffing numbers again declined across all sectors, although there was a mixed picture for different levels of post. As a proportion, more staff possessed library and information science qualifications, but slightly fewer than last year, possessed a law qualification (sections 11.1 to 11.4);
• Law librarians in almost all responding institutions continued to be involved in providing legal research skills training. Most often it was in partnership with law school lecturers and in over half of the institutions, in a programme involving free external trainers supplied by the major database providers (section 12.1);
• Librarians were involved in training for all types of course though not all their contributions were integrated with the law teaching curriculum (section 12.3);
• In general, the amount of teaching received by a research postgraduate has fallen slightly, whilst increases were noted for undergraduates, postgraduate vocational course students and taught course postgraduates (section 12.4);
• On most measures librarians at old and new universities were spending less time teaching than previously (section 12.5);
• Face-to-face contact through IT or database workshops is still the most popular delivery method (section 12.6);
• The integration of information literacy principles within the law undergraduate programme continues to decline (section 12.7);
• A minority of responding institutions had links with overseas institutions and a wide variety of types of support were reported, ranging from email support to overseas students in finding resources to video podcasts (section 13).
1 INTRODUCTION
The following report outlines the activities and funding of academic law libraries in the UK and Ireland in the academic year 2010/2011. The figures have been taken from the results of a postal questionnaire undertaken by Academic Services staff at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies on behalf of the British and Irish Association of Law Librarians (BIALL).
This survey has been run on an annual basis since 1996 and reported in The Law Librarian and latterly in Legal Information Management. It is sponsored either by the British and Irish Association of Law Librarians (BIALL) or by SLS.
I shall attempt to draw comparisons with previous surveys where helpful. In particular ‘2010’ refers to the 2009/2010 data (Clinch, Reference Clinch2011) ‘2009’ refers to the 2008/2009 data (Clinch, Reference Clinch2010), ‘2008’ refers to the 2007/2008 data (Clinch, Reference Clinch2009). All the previous surveys referred to are referenced at the end of the report.
2 METHODOLOGY
The survey methodology followed the format of previous years. In February 2012 a questionnaire was dispatched to 112 institutions in the UK and Ireland, the same number as in the previous survey. As in the past, research centres with no students or only small numbers of postgraduates where the main university law library was invited to respond to the survey, were excluded. For similar reasons, the Oxbridge college libraries were excluded but, as usual, responses from the Bodleian and Squire law libraries were invited. The text of the questionnaire was made available on the BIALL website at www.biall.org.uk.
3 RESPONSE RATES
This year 95 forms were returned representing a response rate of 84.82%, an increase on last year's 82.9%, and very near the record of 85.4%, set in 2003/2004. I am grateful to all those law librarians who took the time to respond. I do not know the reasons for non-returns. On our part we try to be flexible and have permitted some respondents to take up to ten weeks to send in a promised reply.
The return of the response rate to well above 80% and to near the record level is very welcome and should permit the presentation of a reasonably accurate picture of academic law libraries in the UK and Ireland.
To help detect patterns in law library provision, the data has been analysed, as in previous years, by type of institution:
• ‘old’ universities incorporated before 1992
• ‘new’ universities incorporated in or after 1992
• institutes of higher education and other types of institution
Forty-eight old universities responded (45 last year), as did 43 new universities (38 last year) and 4 other institutions (5 last year). The response profile has changed, with over 13% more responses from new universities. This may have affected comparisons with past results.
4 DEFINITIONS
In many of the following sections, the survey responses are analysed using range, mean and median.
• The range indicates the smallest and the greatest value of the responses and helps us understand the diversity of responses.
• The mean has been calculated by adding up all the responses and dividing by the number of responses to get an ‘average’. The mean can be distorted by one or two responses which are very large or very small.
• The median is the mid point and is calculated through ordering the responses by size from the smallest to the greatest and finding the middle response. There will be an equal number of responses below the median and above the median and so it provides a benchmark of what a ‘typical’ university is doing.
All percentages from this point onwards have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
5 STUDENT NUMBERS
A representation of the number of law students served by the libraries helps in understanding the framework in which provision is made and can assist librarians in comparing their provision with institutions of similar sizes.
Respondents were asked to indicate the total number of taught course students (bodies, not FTEs) in the Law School enrolled on exempting undergraduate law degrees or professional or academic postgraduate courses in law. All ninety-five respondents gave figures for student numbers, ranging from 71 to 7,553 (49 to 7,884 in 2010). The median number of law students was 700 (682 in 2010). The mean number however was 843 (903 in 2010).
Respondents in old universities reported student numbers between 71 and 2016 (75 to 1,730 last year), with a mean of 826 (817 last year) and a median of 800 (833 last year). In new universities, the range was 75 to 2,596 (114 to 3,180 last year), with a mean of 745 (last year: 771) and a median of 583 (last year: 544). Amongst the four other institutions, the number of students varied hugely as usual and included three small schools and the largest law school in the survey, with numbers ranging from 145 to 7,553 (2010: 150 to 7,884). The mean was 2,105 (2010: 2,834) and the median was 361 (2010: 364), a decrease of 26% in the mean and a negligible change in the median on last year. The large decrease in the mean could be accounted for by the fact that the second largest law school did not complete a survey this year.
Some significant movements are evident in the number of students attending responding institutions in 2010/2011 as compared with the previous year. The mean amongst old universities is higher whilst the same measure for new universities is lower. This could be due to the slightly changed survey response profile.
Ninety four or 99% of respondents (85 or 97% in 2010) offered an exempting undergraduate law degree. Thirty three or 35% of respondents (30 or 34% in 2010) hosted the Legal Practice Course (LPC), Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) or Diploma in Legal Practice (Scotland). This represents 23% of old university respondents, 49% of new universities and 25% of other institutions. Thirty two or 34% (26 or 30% in 2010) of respondents provided courses leading to other law professional awards, such as the Common Professional Examination or Institute of Legal Executives qualification. Fifteen percent of old universities, 53% of new universities and 50% of other institutions ran such courses. The final category was for other taught courses, such as LLM, which led to a postgraduate award in law. Eighty four or 88% (76 or 86% in 2010) of institutions ran these postgraduate taught courses, including 98% of old and 79% of new universities and 75% other institutions.
The movements in the percentages of respondents offering particular courses this year, as compared with last year, are relatively small.
Respondents also indicated whether the law school enrolled students onto research courses, such as those leading to PhD and MPhil. Seventy four or 78% (65 or 74% in 2010) of institutions indicated that they did. One hundred percent of old universities, 60% of new universities and 0% of other institutions had such students. Research students were not included in the count of law students detailed above. The positive conclusion of these figures is that this year there are marked increases in the number of both old and new universities enrolling PhD and MPhil students.
6 LOCATION OF THE LAW LIBRARY
Respondents were asked to indicate, from a list, which most closely matched the circumstances in their institution.
• 30% had a single law library in a location separated from other subject collections (33% in 2010). Of these, there were 20 (2010: 20) old universities, 7 (2010: 8) new and 2 (2010: 1) other institution.
• 34% had a law collection not so separated but shelved so as to form a single identifiable unit (33% in 2010). These included 16 (2010: 17) old universities, 15 (2009: 11) new and 1 (2010: 1) other institution.
• 20% had several law collections each in a different location (25% in 2010). These included 7 (2010: 5) old, 11 (2010: 14) new universities and 1 (2010: 3) other institutions.
• 16% had a law collection dispersed wholly or partly among other subject collections (9% in 2010). Of these, 5 (2010: 3) were old universities, 10 (2010: 5) were new universities and 0 (2010: 0) other institutions.
Forty one percent (2010: 46%) of old universities responding had a single and separate law library, while 16% (2009: 21%) of new universities and 50% (2010: 20%) of other institutions had a single and separate law library.
Thirty-three percent (2010: 38%) of old universities described their law collection as being shelved so as to form a single identifiable unit but not separate from other collections. Thirty five percent (2010: 29%) of new universities described their law collection in a similar way, and 25% (2010: 20%) of other responding institutions.
Fifteen percent (2010: 11%) of old universities had several law collections, each in a different location, but 26% (2010: 37%) of new universities and one other institutions (25%) reported several collections (2010: 3, 60%). As in past surveys, the main reason for more than one law collection was the establishment of a separate library targeted at vocational course students, such as those on the LPC or BPTE, in addition to a main law collection. Other respondents mentioned other reasons for separate locations: for module texts while main law materials are held elsewhere, and separate collections for Japanese / Korean material. No respondents possessed a separate library targeted at researchers.
The comments to the SLS Statement of Standards 3.1 (Society of Legal Scholars, 2009) on space and physical facilities require “the housing of all relevant collections … as a unified whole in one place …”. This year the figures suggest that this criterion was not met by at least the 16% of institutions reporting dispersed collections. Ten percent of old universities, 23% of new universities and 0% of higher education institutions had law collections wholly or partly dispersed among other subject collections. Last year the figure was 9% of institutions overall; in detail, in 2010, 7% of old, 13% of new and 0% of other institutions had dispersed collections.
The general response profile for different types of institution has altered a little between last year's and this year's surveys, so the actual institutions responding are different and are the most likely reason for the changes noted.
7 LEGAL DATABASES
Contrary to the rest of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate their legal database subscriptions at the present time, rather than in the year 2010/2011. The results below therefore show the position in February 2012.
As in recent years, all respondents gave details of subscription databases used in connection with the teaching and research work of the law school. The ten most frequently mentioned law databases are displayed in the graph 1.
Top 10 legal databases
The law databases' academic market is still fluid but much less than several years ago and similar to last year. On a positive note, seventeen percent of respondents (14% last year and 11% the year before) were planning new subscriptions before the end of July 2012 and only 19% (23% last year and 26% the year before) noted planned or recent cancellations before the financial year end.
A small number of law databases continue to dominate the market. Westlaw UK was taken by every respondent (100%) and Lexis®Library was taken by all, bar two (98% of respondents). Last year Westlaw UK was taken by all, bar one respondents (99%) and Lexis®Library by all bar four (96%). HeinOnline, retained its market position, being taken by 70 or 74% of respondents, keeping the third position it gained in 2007. Lawtel UK held on to fourth place but with a reduced percentage of respondents, with 39 or 41% of respondents (last year: 44 or 46% of respondents) taking the database.
Of the other databases mentioned by respondents a fall was recorded by JustCite, who remained in 5th position with 27% of respondents. Jordan's Family Law Online was in 6th position with 17% of respondents and i-law was in 7th position with 13%. ILP and IFLP were steady at joint 8th position with 12% of respondents and Oxford Reports on International Law and Lawtel EU were joint 10th with 11% of respondents.
Looking at the returns for Westlaw UK in more detail, no respondents reported plans to either extend or reduce their coverage of subscriptions in the year to July 2012. Four respondents (2010: 4) subscribed to Westlaw IE (Irish Law). Three were based in the Irish Republic and one in London; all four also subscribed to Westlaw UK.
Respondents were asked to indicate the subscriptions they took to particular parts of the Lexis®Library product. This year the Cases module overtook the Journals module to become the most popular product, taken by 95% of respondents (2010: 92%). The Journals module on Lexis®Library was tied second most popular, taken by 93% of respondents (2010: 94%), with Legislation (2010: 92%). Halsbury's Laws remained in fourth place, taken by 86% of respondents (2010: 83%) while International Materials were fifth most popular, taken by 77% of respondents (2010: 78%). UK Newspapers was taken by 71% of respondents (2010 not recorded) and Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents in electronic format was taken by 43% of respondents (2010: 49%).
No other Lexis®Library product was taken by more than 6% of respondents. The next most popular was Nexis at 5% of respondents, followed by Employment Law at 4% of respondents (2010: 6%), Company and Commercial at 4% (2010: 5%) and PSL at 4% (2010: 2%). The following were taken by 2% each: Quicklaw (2010: 2%), Atkins Court Forms (2010 not recorded), Family Law (2010: 4%), Local Government (2010: 2%), Tax (2010: 4%) and Civil Procedure (2010: 2%). A further 7 Lexis®Library databases were mentioned by a total of just over 7% of respondents.
One respondent intended to take out a new subscription to Lexis®Library Middle East Online and one respondent hoped to take out a new subscription to Halsbury's Laws. Two respondents were hoping to upgrade to the full academic package. No respondents reported that they were planning to cancel any part of their existing Lexis®Library subscriptions.
HeinOnline retained its third position with a steady 74% share of the market (2010: 74%). This year two respondents said they were planning to subscribe to HeinOnline in the near future, but one respondent said it was planning to cancel an existing subscription citing lack of funds as the reason.
Although retaining its fourth position, Lawtel UK again slipped back, dropping to 41% of respondents, from 46% last year. No respondents hoped to subscribe to Lawtel UK and three intended to cancel their subscriptions to Lawtel UK by July 2012 -two citing lack of use as a reason and one stating that they now use the Westlaw Alerts service instead.
JustCite reduced its share and was mentioned by 26 or 27% (2010: 33%). Jordan's Family Law Online was mentioned by 16 or 17% of respondents (2010 not recorded).
Other than the databases already discussed in detail, the following databases were mentioned by 10% or more respondents:
Databases cited by 7 or more respondents included PLC online (9 respondents), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law and Casetrack (8 respondents each) and Kluwer Arbitration (7 respondents).
Six respondents (or 6%) subscribed to the following Justis products: The Law Reports, this being another very significant fall (2010: 16%), the International Law Reports and the UK Statutes and the UK Statutory Instruments. The House of Commons Parliamentary Papers were also taken by 6% of respondents.
Justis Weekly Law Reports, was subscribed to by 5 institutions, representing another significant fall to 5% of respondents (2010: 16%). Five respondents also took the Justis English Reports, Oxford Scholarship Online and Public Information Online. Subscriptions to the Current Legal Information (CLI) database stabilised at 5 respondents or 5% in February 2012.
Four respondents took the Justis products: The Irish Reports, EU Law, and State Trials; three respondents took the Justis Session Cases; two respondents took the Mental Health Reports, Times Law Reports and the Parliament module. The following modules were mentioned by one respondent; Legal Update, Prison Law Reports, UK Transcripts, Singapore Law Reports, Caribbean Law Reports and Current Awareness.
Except for Lawtel EU, databases of European legal information continue to be casualties in the changing academic legal database market. Lawtel EU slightly improved and was taken by 10 respondents or 11% (2010: 9%). However one respondent plans to cancel Lawtel EU by July 2012 because of duplication of materials elsewhere. Eurolaw has slipped down the list again, subscribed to by just 1 respondent or 1% (2010: 1%). Other full text EU databases were taken by only 4 respondents, the equivalent of 4% of respondents (2010: 7%). They included European Sources Online.
The median number of legal database subscriptions taken in responding law libraries in February 2012 was still 4, the same as in the four previous years. The numbers of legal databases offered by institutions ranged from 2 to 47 (2010: 2 to 50).
As an indication of the increasingly broad range of databases thought to be relevant to the study of law in UK universities, a total of 79 databases other than those already featured were each mentioned by under 10% of survey respondents (2010: 54 databases). The increase in the range of databases may reflect the increasingly diverse needs of respondents.
All bar one legal database was accessed via the internet (i.e. one respondent accessed CLI via CD-ROM). The transfer from CD-ROM to the Internet has been rapid and is now almost complete. In 1999 just 32% of legal databases were internet based.
8 OTHER DATABASES
In addition to law databases, law schools use a range of more general information databases, such as the newspapers, which are of relevance to students in a wide range of disciplines. Fifty two respondents (55%) noted other subscription databases which contribute significantly to the teaching and research work of their law school. This showed a slight decline from the 56% recorded last year.
The EBSCO journal subscription service was mentioned by 19 institutions (2010: 10) and IBSS (International Bibliography of the Social Sciences) by just 4 respondents (2010: 6). ISI Web of Science service, the most widely used of the general databases mentioned in 2009 and 2010, slipped to second position with 49 respondents (52%) mentioning the service this year (44 or 50% last year). JSTOR overtook it to become the most widely used general database with a very significant increase to 55% of respondents (2010: 8%).
By February 2012, 53 or 56% of law schools served by responding libraries used a web-based combined newspaper database to access the full range of newspapers (2010: 53 or 60%). The suppliers were Nexis UK used by 28 respondents (2010: 30), Factiva with 7 respondents (2010: 6), Proquest with 5 respondents (2010: 5), Newsbank with 5 respondents (2010: 4), Gale with 4 respondents (2010: 4) and Infotrac with 2 respondents (2010: 4), and UK Newspapers Online with one respondent (2010: 1). No other newspaper databases were mentioned. The results for this year indicate the continued popularity for Nexis UK, with only slight changes in the subscriber newspaper databases used to contribute significantly to teaching and research in the law school.
ASSIA was mentioned by 22 or 23% of respondents (2010: 28 or 32% of respondents).
Bookdata was used by 1 respondent (2010: 0%). Thirty five respondents mentioned a total of 37 (2010: 41) other cross-disciplinary or social science indexes or electronic journal providers which contributed significantly to the teaching and research work of the law school. Criminal Justice Abstracts was mentioned by 22% of respondents, EBSCO Academic Search or Business Source Premier by 20% of respondents and IBSS by just 4%.
9 EXPENDITURE
Ninety two of the 95 respondents were able to provide total expenditure figures for 2010/11. Those respondents who did not, either could not disaggregate law expenditure from other subjects (2 respondents) or were not prepared to provide the information (1 respondent).
9.1 Total Expenditure on Law Materials
Total expenditure on the acquisition of law materials ranged from £20,154 to £1,360,500 (2010: £17,839 to £1,273,900). Mean expenditure was £160,864 (2010: £165,396), a 3% decrease on 2010, which is a significant and worrying reduction.
It is helpful in understanding these changes to compare the expenditure in the different types of institution.
Old universities 45 out of a possible 48 responses (2010: 43)
Range from £49,097 to £644,000; median £148,001 (down 15% on 2010); mean £176,871 (down less than 1% from 2010). 75% of old universities spent at least £104,945 (up 1.9% on last year). 25% spent more than £219,421 (up 3.3% on last year).
New universities 43 responses (2010: 37)
Range £20,154 to £624,715; median £96,572 (up 0.25% on last year); mean £122,896 (up 3.7% on last year). 75% of new universities spent at least £56,024 (down 17.3% on last year) and 25% spent more than £157,720 (up 6.8% on last year).
Other institutions 4 responses (2010: 5)
Range £57,594 to £1,360,500; median £68,813 (up 9% on last year); mean £388,930, down 3.1% on last year). 75% spent at least £63,687 (up 119% on last year) and 25% spent more than £1,360,500 (up 44% on last year). Some of these figures are not very useful because of the tiny sample.
The results indicate how the harsher financial climate is biting with varying severity across the three sectors. For old and new universities the results are mixed, although some key indicators (e.g. the median for old universities and the spend for 75% of new universities) are substantially down.
For each law student in a typical university (looking at the median) £192 was spent on law materials. This is a 9% increase on the figure for 2010.
However, the rate of increase has not been evenly distributed across the higher education sector. In an old university, median spend per student was £201 (2010: £196) but for a student in a new university the median was £182 (2010: £169), a narrowing gap between old and new universities of 9.5% (2010: 16%). In other types of institution the median spend per student was £256 (2010: £162). As graph 2 illustrates, the gap between old and new universities fluctuates over time but narrowed again in 2010/2011 due to a slight increase in median expenditure in old universities but a much larger increase in the median for new universities. Per capita expenditure at other types of institution has increased enormously and risen well above old universities. However this marked statistical change is due to the very tiny sample of just 4 respondents.
Library materials expenditure per student
Taking the mean, rather than the median, the pattern is also of a narrowing gap between sectors. Mean law materials expenditure per student in old universities was £219, down 2% from 2010 whereas in new universities it was £213, a 12% increase on 2010. In other types of institution the mean spend per student was £256 (2010: £153), indicating a steep increase, but these results have been calculated over just four respondents.
9.2 Monograph Expenditure
Ninety one respondents provided details of spending on books, seven more than last year. Some respondents had difficulty providing a discrete and accurate figure for law expenditure alone owing to the way the university or college budget is divided amongst subject areas.
Expenditure on monographs ranged from £1,139 to £349,300 (2010: £2,291 to £303,400), with a mean of £31,990, a fall of nearly 6% on 2010 and a median of £24,500, an increase of 7% on last year.
In 2011, on average, monograph acquisitions accounted for 21% of total law material expenditure (2010: 22%; 2009: 22%). The proportion of total expenditure spent on books ranged from 4% to 56% with a median of 19% (2010: 6% to 59%, median 21%; 2009: 4% to 59%, median 21%).
Analysed by type of institution the figures for monograph expenditure were:
Old universities 45 respondents (2010: 43)
Range £9,072 to £86,000; median £26,553, a fall of 13% on last year; mean £32,883 a fall of 12% on 2010. Mean of 20% of total law material expenditure (2010: 23%; 2009: 24%).
New universities 42 respondents (2010: 36)
Range £1,139 to £124,240; median £21,595, an increase of 6% on last year; mean £25,171, up 6% on last year. Mean of 22% of total law material expenditure (2010: 21%; 2009: 20%).
Other institutions 4 institutions (2010: 5)
Range £5,174 to £349,300; median £9,835, a fall of 45%; mean £93,536, a rise of 10% on last year. Mean of 16% of total law material expenditure (2010: 20%; 2009: 21%).
The figures for old universities show a fall in expenditure on monographs while figures for new universities recorded a rise. Similarly, the percentage of total law expenditure devoted to monographs has decreased for old universities and increased again for new universities.
9.3 Serials Expenditure
Ninety one of the 92 respondents who gave any financial figures were able to provide a figure for their spending on serials, up eight on last year. The questionnaire defined serials as law journals, statutes, law reports and loose-leaf updates.
As a mean, serials accounted for 50% of total law materials expenditure, down on last year and at its lowest level ever (2010: 54%; 2009: 56%). The proportion of expenditure given to serials ranged from 10% to 88% (2010: 13% to 85%; 2009: 17% to 93%) with a median of 51% (2010: 57%; 2009: 55%). Overall, serials expenditure ranged from £3,445 to £825,000 (2010: 3,000 to £817,000), with a median of £57,615 (2010: £72,770) and a mean of £86,062 (2010: £97,095), the median down 26% (2010: up by 12.4%), and the mean down by 13% (2010: up by under 1%). The falls in both indicators are significantly more than the increases in 2010.
Overall, the actual amounts spent on serials have fallen and the percentage of total law expenditure spent on these materials is significantly lower than in the last two years.
Analysed by type of institution the figures were:
Old universities 44 responses (2010: 42)
Range £3,445 to £472,222; median £84,900, down 12% on last year, reversing the upward trend established between 2008 and 2010; mean £97,633, down 10% reversing the rising trend established in 2007. Mean of 53% of total law material expenditure (2010: 58%; 2009: 57%).
New universities 43 responses (2010: 36)
Range £4,100 to £332,490; median £47,000, a fall of over 5% on last year, continuing the downward trend established in 2010; mean £60,604, a fall of 8% on last year. Mean of 46% of total law material expenditure (2010: 51%; 2009: 54%).
Other institutions 4 responses (2010: 5)
Range £11,694 to £825,000; median £46,598, an increase of 21% on last year; mean £232,473, a fall of 2% on last year. Mean of 46% of total law material expenditure (2010: 43%; 2009: 57%).
The indicators for old universities show falls in the actual sums spent on serials and in the proportion of the total budget spent on this type of material. New universities again reduced the actual sums spent and the proportion of total budget spent on serials fell again. All the results for other institutions are affected by the small number of institutions in the profile.
9.4 Database Expenditure
Databases accounted for 29% of total law materials expenditure in the mean, ranging from 8% to 79% and with a median of 28% (2010: mean 25%, median of 22%; 2009: mean of 24%, median of 21%). Of the 90 responses (2010: 81), expenditure ranged from £6,236 to £250,225 (2010: £7,774 to £193,730) with a median of £29,909 (2010: £25,355), a rise of under 18% on last year, and a mean of £44,271 (2010: £37,037), a staggering rise of 20% on last year.
Analysed by type of institution the figures were:
Old universities 43 respondents (2010: 40)
Range £10,990 to £170,642; median £35,675, a dramatic rise of 19% up on last year; mean £49,282, a dramatic rise of 33% on last year. Median 23% and mean 28% of total law material expenditure (2010: 21% and 21%; 2009: 20% and 23% respectively).
New universities 43 respondents (2010: 36)
Range £6,236 to £250,225; median £24,729, up 7% on 2010; mean £37,547, up 19% on last year. Median 30% and mean 33% of total law material expenditure (2010: 24% and 27%; 2009: 23% and 27%).
Other institutions 4 respondents (2010: 5)
Range £11,282 to £186,200; median £26,616, a rise of 26% on 2010; mean £62,679, a fall of 20% on last year. Median 18% and mean 29% of total law material expenditure (2010: 32% and 37%; 2009: 18% and 20%).
Spending on databases in both old and new universities has increased dramatically on last year.
Respondents were asked to distinguish, if possible, between expenditure on locally stored databases such as CD-ROMs and expenditure on remote, in effect, web-based, databases.
9.4.1 Expenditure on Web-Based Databases
For most institutions the figures for web database expenditure do not include broad-based electronic information, such as ISI Web of Knowledge, newspaper databases or electronic journals which, although used by law staff and students, are usually funded outside the law budget for use by students across all subject disciplines.
Eighty nine respondents (2010: 78) noted expenditure on web databases ranging from £6,236 to £250,225 (2010: £7,774 to £193,730), with a median of £29,600, up 20% on 2010, and a mean of £41,801, up 18% on last year. The dramatic rises of 2008 and 2009 have been repeated. Amongst respondents providing this detailed information, web databases accounted for a mean of 30% of law material expenditure and a median of 28%, (2010: 25% and 22%; 2009: 23% and 21%).
9.4.2 Expenditure on CD-ROM Databases
Just 1 respondent (2010: 2) reported expenditure on CD-ROMs or other locally-stored databases. The amount was £1,108.
9.5 Other Expenditure on Law Materials
Twenty two respondents noted ‘other’ expenditure, six more than last year. Expenditure ranged from £32.70 to £33,000 (2010: £22 to £57,000), with a median of £885 (2010: £2,326), an enormous 62% fall, and a mean of £2,844 (2010: £6,153), another dramatic fall of 54%. Nine respondents spent the money on inter-library loans and five on binding. E-books were mentioned three times, digitisation of materials and document delivery were both mentioned twice. One respondent a piece mentioned BIALL, AV materials and HERON.
9.6 Expenditure by Institutions not Providing Vocational or Professional Award Courses
At the suggestion of one respondent, we have carried out some analyses on expenditure by those institutions which offer only an exempting law degree or LLM courses; that is, those who do not offer vocational courses, such as the LPC, BPTC or Diploma in Legal Practice (Scotland) or courses leading to professional awards, such as the CPE and ILEX. These institutions believe that vocational courses require the purchase of expensive practitioner materials and so the results given earlier in section 15 are inflated and make comparison with their situation very difficult. So, we have re-run the analyses for total expenditure.
Total expenditure on the acquisition of law materials ranged from £20,154 to £644,000 (2010: £35,919 to £638,550). Mean expenditure was £147,023 (2010: £150,332), a 2% decrease on 2010.
It is helpful in understanding these changes to compare the expenditure in the different types of institution.
Old universities 29 respondents, 2 of whom provided no financial data (2010: 30)
Range £49,097 to £644,000 (2010: £35,919 to £638,550); median £183,389 (2010: £174,506), a 5% increase on last year; mean £194,392 (2010: £189,149), 3% up on last year.
New universities 14 respondents (2010: 13)
Range £20,154 to £111,156 (2010: £36,000 to £111,492); median £53,831 (2010: £66,157), 19% lower than in 2010; mean £60,075 (2010: £69,215), 13% down on last year.
Other institutions 2 respondents (2010: 1)
Range £63,687 to £73,938. (2010: £40,348); median £68,812 up 71% on last year; mean £68,812 up 71% on last year.
Comparing these results with those in paragraph 9.1 for all respondents in each of the three sectors, there are differences between the medians and means in old universities, but much more significant differences between the medians and means amongst new universities. The reason for the differences lay in the numbers of students at each institution – those new universities which do not offer vocational courses have smaller numbers of students than those that do, hence a smaller expenditure on the acquisition of library materials.
10 SOURCES OF INCOME
Ninety two (2009: 85) respondents gave details of the source of the funds from which law material expenditure was met.
The greatest proportion of acquisitions was funded from general library funds, and all except three institutions responding received at least part of their income this way. Using the mean, 88% of old universities', 90% of new universities' and 88% of other institutions' income for law library materials was from general library funds (88%, 90% and 95% last year). When the median is used the figures are 94%, 100%, 100% (2010: 98%, 100% and 100%). The decrease in the median percentage for old universities' indicates a slight fall in focus on general library funds, whilst the no change in these percentages for new universities' indicates the same focus on general library funds as the source as last year.
Law schools contributed to funding the acquisition of law materials in 41 institutions (2010: 39). As has been noted in previous survey reports, a considerable number of law schools make no such contribution at all (57% this year, 55% in 2010). Fifty two percent (2010: 56%) of old university law schools, 35% (2010: 34%) of new university law schools and one, 25% (2010: 0%) of other institutions' schools contributed something.
Of the law schools that contributed, the amount ranged from £2,000 to £204,697 (2010: £1,000 to £220,066). The median contribution was £20,887, a decrease of nearly 20% on last year. The mean was £37,644, down 23% on last year.
For the libraries that received funds from the law school, these funds represented a mean of 25% of the total income for the purchase of law materials, with a median of 19% (29% and 23% last year). The percentage contributions by law schools based in old and new universities moved further apart this year. Of the old university law schools who contributed anything, the mean contribution represented 22% of the funds for library materials (2010: 30%), while new university law schools contributed 29% (2010: 28%). One ‘other’ institution received funds from the law school contributing 49% (2010: 0%).
In old universities, median law school funding for law materials was £19,500, down 24% on last year's staggering rise. The mean was £35,799, down 30% on last year. In new universities the comparative figures were a median of £25,000, down 23% on last year and a mean of £40,828, down 7% on 2010.
Over half of all law schools make no contribution to funding the acquisition of law materials, a higher percentage than in past years. There was a very slight increase in the proportion of new university and other institution law schools making a contribution which has halted the previous falls, but there was a 4% fall in the percentage number of old university law schools contributing this year. In addition, gauged on most indicators, for old universities and new universities, those law schools which did contribute gave much less than in the past. The pattern across the sectors indicated that, unlike past years, new university law schools contributed the largest proportion to the law library budget, followed by old universities. The mean amount contributed by law schools at new universities decreased by 7% whilst the mean amount contributed by law schools at old universities decreased by 30%.
Seven institutions (2010: 9) reported receiving income from other university budgets for law materials. For these five old universities and two new universities, the amount of income from these sources ranged from £7,750 to £62,295 (2010: £2,500 to £171,850).
One old university reported funding from user charges (2010: 1). The sum was £12,962 (2010: £10,200).
Finally, 8 institutions (2010: 6) reported receiving financial contributions towards law materials from outside bodies. The sums ranged from £250 to £117,091 (2010: £60 to £192,000), with a median income of £5,505 (2010: £6,125) and a mean income of £21,208 (2010: £40,256). Of these, six were old universities and two were new universities.
10.1 Targeted Funding From Law School
Two further questions sought to explore whether law schools paid for specific materials or services.
The first question asked respondents to indicate whether specific types of materials were paid for by the law school. 35 respondents (37%) replied in the positive (2010: 32, 36%). By far the most frequently mentioned was payment of, or contributions towards, the cost of electronic databases; 20 respondents (2010: 18). Seven respondents noted that the law school contributed towards the cost of law books, journals or reports (7 in 2010) ranging from research journals to multiple copies of textbooks. Library materials for the Legal Practice Course or Bar Professional Training Course were mentioned specifically by eight respondents (8 in 2010).
In the second question in this section, respondents were asked to indicate whether the law school contributed to law library expenditure other than for the purchase of law materials. Six respondents (12 in 2010) received this additional funding. Four indicated the total amount of the contribution, ranging from £10,000 to £47,000 (2010: £2,171 to £193,788). Once again, the highest figure was at an old university where the Law School paid for staff salaries for a vocational library. Five out of six respondents received funding towards the cost of staff salaries. In addition, the respondents received funding for other purposes: PC and printing support for law students, law librarian's training and conference fees, and towards a “proportion of all services”.
11 STAFFING
The responses to the questions on staffing provide a picture of the number and qualifications of library staff in academic law libraries. The definition of law library staff provided in the questionnaire was the same as for the previous surveys. To be included in the survey, library staff were to spend 50% or more of their working time on the care and servicing of the law collection. Six (6%) of the 95 responding institutions had no staff which met this criterion (2010: 6 or 7%). Of these, 2 (2010: 3) were old universities and 4 (2010: 3) were new universities. In a number of instances respondents mentioned that law was just one of a number of subjects for which a team of librarians was responsible, but no one spent the requisite 50% or more of their time on law alone, or that their responsibilities were diversifying into library-wide activities.
For the 89 respondents (2010: 82) with staff who met the criterion, the full time equivalent (FTE) number of staff ranged from 0.3 to 23.95 (2010: 0.4 to 24) with a median of 1.0 (2010: 1.0) and a mean of 2.6 (2009: 3.0). Forty one percent (2010: 34%) had exactly one FTE member of law library staff.
As in previous surveys, old universities ranged most widely in the number of law library staff and 8% had four or more FTE (2010: 17%), continuing the sharp declining trend in numbers over the last few years, compared to only 3% of new universities (2010: 9%).
The median for old universities' FTE law library staffing was 1.5 (2010: 2.0) with a mean of 3.3 (2010: 3.4). The median for new universities was 1.0 (2010: 1.0) and the mean was 1.4 (2010: 1.5). The four other institutions were very varied in their staffing levels, from 1 to 17.6 FTE. Two of the four had one FTE.
The staffing picture portrays another year of decline across all sectors.
Respondents were asked for the FTE number of staff in professional, clerical and other posts.
11.1 Professional Posts
Of the 89 institutions which had staff with the care and servicing of the law collections as their sole or principal function, only one (an old university) did not have a professional post (2010: 9). Overall, then, of the 89 responding law libraries with staff who met the definition, 99% had a designated professional who could dedicate a significant proportion of their time to the needs of the law service (2010: 89%). This confirms the upward trend of 2010.
The number of professional FTE posts ranged from 0.3 to 8.5 (2010: 0.4 to 8.6) but 64% of institutions (2010: 56%) with any professional posts had exactly one FTE.
In old universities, 26 of the 45 respondents had exactly 1 FTE, with 10 institutions with less than 1 FTE; 9 had more than one and the maximum was 7.60 FTE professional posts. The mean for old universities was 1.3 FTEs (2010: 1.4 FTEs). There was 1 (2010: 2) responding institution without a professional person spending 50% or more of their time servicing the law collection and depending on a member of clerical staff with a LIS qualification. The results show a slight reduction in the level of professional staffing in the old universities.
In new universities, 27 of the 39 respondents had exactly 1 FTE professional post, 10 had fewer and 2 had more, comprising 1 with 2.5 professional FTE and 1 with 4.0 professional FTE (2010: 2 with 1.5 FTE and 1 with 2.0 FTE). The mean for new universities was 1.0 (2010: 0.93 FTE). These results indicate a very slight increase in the level of professional staffing at new universities. In other institutions, three had exactly I FTE and one had 8,5 FTE (2010: 1 at 0 FTE, 1 at 1 FTE, two with more, to a maximum of 8.5 FTE).
11.2 Clerical Posts
Turning to clerical posts, 43 institutions had clerical staff who met the definition given in section 11. Of the other 46 who had library staff but no clerical staff, 16 were old universities, 28 were new universities and 2 were ‘other’ institutions.
For those that did have clerical staffing, numbers ranged from 0.3 to 16.67 (2010: 0.25 to 15.40), with a median of 1.0 (2010: 1.25), continuing a downward trend. Sixty three percent of old universities reported clerical staff for law as opposed to just 26% of new universities (2010: 71%, 34%). As found in past years, old universities typically had larger numbers of clerical staff. Eight of the 30 old universities with clerical staff had four or more such staff and the mean was 3.0 FTEs (2010: 2.9 FTEs), whereas of the 11 new universities with clerical staffing only one (2010: 0) had four or more FTEs. One (2010: 2) of the two other institutions with clerical staff for law, had four or more FTE – they have law libraries scattered across the regions of England.
A partial explanation for the large difference between the presence of clerical staffing in old and new universities could be drawn from the location of the law library. Of the 17 (2010: 14) institutions with more than 2 FTE clerical staff, 11 (65%) had a law library located separately from other collections (2010: 36%). Of these 11 institutions, 10 (91%) were old universities. Where there is a separate law library, staffing is less likely to be shared between subjects, and circulation and other activities will be dedicated to the law collections. It is noteworthy however, that 37% of respondents who had a single law library in a separate location had professional staff but no clerical staffing or ‘other’ staff dedicated to the law service (2010: 24%).
11.3 Staff Employed in Other Posts
Seven institutions (2010: 5) noted law library staff, other than clerical or professional staff, who met the criterion noted in section 11 above. Of these, 4 were old universities and 2 were new and one another type of institution. FTE numbers of such staff ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 (2010: 0.5 to 1.0). Their duties were specified by six of the seven respondents and included student/staff aides for evenings and weekends, student assistant, shelver, ‘shift cover’, assistant faculty librarian and evening weekend invigilator.
11.4 Qualifications of Staff
Respondents were asked to indicate how many of the staff whose principal function was the care of the law collections, had a professional librarianship or information science (LIS) qualification or an academic or professional qualification in law.
Eighty nine respondents or 94% (2010: 81 or 92% of all respondents) had at least one member of staff who had a LIS qualification, although for 17 institutions this was less than one full-time member of staff (2010: 18). Fifty five (2010: 43) institutions had exactly one FTE member of staff with a LIS qualification and 6 (2010: 5) had three or more FTE staff with such a qualification, up to a maximum of 12.5 FTE (2010: 13.5 FTE). Of the six institutions which did not have any law library staff with a LIS qualification, two were old universities and four new. No institutions had law library staff employed in a professional librarian post, without a LIS qualification.
Twenty two of the 95 respondents representing 23% of institutions (2010: 25%) had staff with an academic or professional qualification in law. This is a return to the level seen in most years. Sixteen (2010: 12) had at least one member of staff so qualified, and 13 (2010: 12) had exactly 1.0 FTE staff member with a law qualification. As found in past surveys, library staff with law qualifications were much more common in old universities. Looking at only those institutions which had any staff which met the criterion noted in section 11 above, in old universities 31% (2010: 36%) of law libraries had law qualified staff, compared to new universities where only 12% (2010: 11%) had law qualified staff. Two (2010: 2) of the four other institutions had such staff. Overall, 68% of the libraries with law qualified staff were in old universities, five percent lower than last year.
12 LEGAL RESEARCH SKILLS INSTRUCTION
User training in law libraries is investigated by this survey every other year. Legal research skills training is defined for the survey in terms of instruction, for example, in how to understand legal abbreviations and in the use of particular law publications or databases. It is not concerned with induction tours, basic introductions to the library or the library catalogue. All 95 (2009: 92) respondents completed this part of the questionnaire this year, and all of them confirmed that they provided some form of legal research skills training.
12.1 Who Provides the Instruction?
In 98% (2009: 96%) of institutions law library staff were involved in providing legal research skills training. Only in 2 new universities were library staff not involved.
Law School lecturing staff were involved in the training in 62% (2009: 72%) of institutions. Other staff, including other professional library staff and IT training officers in the law school, were involved in 7% (2009: 3%) of institutions. Several of the database providers now offer free training to staff and students and so the survey asked whether such external trainers were used for legal research skills instruction. 55% (2009: 55%) of respondents' institutions took advantage of such free training. In addition, Lexis or Westlaw student associates contributed to training in 49% (2009: 51%) of institutions.
In 12% (2009: 8%) of institutions, the law library staff alone provided legal research skills instruction. In a further 24% (2009: 65%) of institutions, the law library staff's contribution was supplemented by external trainers or student associates employed by a database supplier. Law library staff with or without the assistance of external trainers or student associates, had sole responsibility for the training in 31% of old universities, 42% of new universities and 25% of other institutions (2009: 30%, 24% and 0%).
In 60% of institutions (71% in 2009), provision was a joint responsibility between the law library and law school lecturing staff. However, in 71% (2009: 52%) of institutions, legal research skills instruction also involved other staff or external trainers.
These figures suggest that the law library and law school continue to work together to develop students' legal research skills in a large number of universities and other institutions, aided by free trainers or students associates from the large database providers. Since the last survey two years ago, the use of free external trainers supplied by database providers appears to have stabilised at 55%, whilst the use of student associates has decreased slightly. The number of law library staff having sole responsibility for legal research skills training has slightly increased in old universities and dramatically increased in new universities. The overall picture is still a mix of contributors to legal research skills training in institutions, but with law librarians retaining the key role in the overwhelming majority.
12.2 For Which Courses is Instruction Provided?
Respondents indicated for which courses legal research skills instruction was provided by library staff.
In most responding institutions, law library staff were involved in legal research skills instruction for all types of users. The proportion of institutions where library staff were involved in legal research skills instruction for undergraduates was stable, whilst there has been a decrease in the proportion involved in postgraduate vocational courses. Involvement with postgraduate taught courses has increased a few percentage points and involvement with training research postgraduates has stabilised.
Except for the trend for training postgraduate vocational course students, all the other trends are encouraging.
12.3 Integration with the Teaching Curriculum
Respondents were asked in which courses was the library's contribution to legal research skills instruction timetabled and incorporated within the curriculum of study.
The levels of integration of the library's contribution have increased for undergraduate courses, other taught postgraduate (LLM) courses and for research courses. However, the level of integration of their contribution within postgraduate vocational courses has slipped back a little (although in terms of absolute numbers it has increased from 32 respondents in 2008/2009 to 39 respondents in 2010/2011).
12.4 How Much Teaching Does a student Receive?
To understand how much training each of the courses noted above actually receive, respondents were then asked to note the number of timetabled contact hours of legal research skills instruction, a student would receive from library staff over the duration of the whole course of study. Contact hours were defined as the length of time an individual student would spend receiving direct timetabled teaching or tutorial guidance.
For the 85 respondents (2009: 81) who noted contact hours for undergraduates, hours ranged from 1 to 14 (2009: 1 to 12), with a mean of 5.4 hours (2009: 3.8) and a median of 5 hours (2009: 3). Undergraduates in 48% (2009: 53%) of respondents' institutions received between 2 and 4 hours instruction from the law library staff.
41 respondents (2009: 34) noted contact hours with library staff for students on the LPC, BPTC, CPE, Legal Executives and other postgraduate professional courses. Hours ranged from 1 to 8 (2009: 1 to 13), with a mean of 3.5 hours (2009: 3.5) and a median of 3.0 hours (2009: 2.5).
70 institutions (2009: 68) gave contact hours for other taught postgraduate students. These ranged from 1 hour to 11 hours (2009: 1 to 10), with a mean of 4.1 hours (2009: 3) and a median of 3 hours (2009: 2).
Finally, 43 respondents, comprising 32 old universities and 11 new universities (2009: 40 respondents with 29 old universities and 11 new) gave research postgraduates between 1 hour and 8.5 hours of legal research skills instruction (2009: 1 to 40), with a mean of 3.1 hours (2009: 3.5) and a median of 2 hours (2009: 2).
In general, the amount of teaching received by a research postgraduate has fallen slightly. However, increases were noted for undergraduates, postgraduate vocational course students and taught course postgraduates (LLM).
12.5 How Many Hours do Librarians Spend Delivering Legal Research Skills Instruction?
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of law library staff hours spent in delivering legal research skills instruction during the year. Preparation time was excluded. Eighty nine institutions responded (2009: 84), with figures ranging from 1.5 hours to 300 hours (2009: 2 to 280). 17 respondents (2009: 18) spent under 10 hours teaching, 12 of whom were old universities and 4 new and 1 other institution (2009: 11 old, 7 new, 0 other). At the other end of the scale, 5 respondents (2009: 6) of whom 3 were old universities and 2 new universities spent over 100 hours on instruction (2009: 3 old, 3 new, 0 other). The overall mean was 37 hours (2009: 42). The mean for old universities was 39 hours and new universities was 35 hours, but other institutions returned a mean of 16 hours (2009: old 43 hours, new 43 hours, other institutions 9 hours). The overall median was 26 hours (2009: 27).
On most measures, librarians in old and new universities appear to be spending fewer hours teaching than previously, and more of this teaching was being undertaken in old universities than in new universities.
12.6 Method of Delivery
Respondents were asked to indicate, for the instruction featured in section 12.2 above, which methods of delivery were used.
As in the four previous surveys, IT or database workshops were the most popular method of delivery, used by 81% of all respondents, the same figure reported in 2009. They were used most frequently for undergraduate teaching, where 65% of respondents used workshops, followed by taught course postgraduate courses with 56% of respondents using the method. Database workshops were used by 32% of respondents for research postgraduates and, as in past years, this was the most popular delivery method for this group of students.
Overall, large group sessions were the next most popular method of delivery used by 75% of all respondents (2009: 69%). They were most often used for undergraduate level teaching, where 63% of respondents used this method (2009: 67%), followed by other postgraduate taught courses with 49% of respondents using this delivery method (2009: 42%), postgraduate professional courses with 26% of respondents (2009: 41%) and research students at 20% of respondents.
Small group sessions based in a seminar room, rather than an IT room, were used by librarians in 43% of institutions (2009: 26%). They were used most frequently for undergraduates by 29% of respondents (2009: 23%), then taught postgraduates by 20% of respondents (2009: 25%), and for research postgraduates 16% of respondents (2009: 13%). They were least often used for postgraduate professional training, where the method was used in 15% of cases (2009: 17%).
Locally produced online tutorials were used by 28% of responding institutions for legal research skills instruction (2009: 40%). This method of delivery showed a considerable decrease in use over 2009. Online tutorials were used across all courses but especially with undergraduates, where 25% of respondents used this method of delivery (2009: 33%) and taught postgraduate courses, with 21% of respondents (2009: 21%). Nine percent of respondents used them with both postgraduate professional courses (2009: 30%) and research postgraduate courses (2009: 9%).
Student workbooks, which enable hands-on self-paced learning, were used by just 20% (2009: 19%). They were used by 13 institutions (2009: 16) for undergraduates, by 8 institutions for postgraduate professional courses (2009: 9 institutions), by 6 institutions for postgraduate taught courses (2009: 8 institutions), and by 1 institution with research postgraduates (2009: 1).
Video was still used by only 4% of respondents (2009: 4%) and most often for undergraduate training in 4% of courses (2009: 5%).
Eighteen percent (2009: 10%) of respondents noted other methods. Eleven noted one-to-one training (used as part of all courses and gaining in popularity) and two noted practical training in using print resources.
12.7 Information Literacy
As in 2005, 2007 and 2009 we asked two survey questions specifically referring to the Association of College and Research Libraries' (ACRL) Competency Standards (American Library Association, 2000) and the SCONUL Standards and the integration of these principles within the undergraduate law curriculum.
Ninety three institutions responded (2009: 90), of which only 30 or 32% did (2009: 31 or 34%). Of those institutions that did, 25 or 83% (2009: 26 or 81%) embedded the principles within a law course whilst 5 or 17% (2009: 5 or 16%) embedded them within a generic information literacy programme. This year no respondents embedded the principles in both types of programme (2009: 3%).
These questions were first posed in 2005. The results for 2009 showed a decrease in the number of institutions integrating information literacy principles within the law undergraduate programme. The latest figures indicate the numbers have declined slightly on 2009.
13 OVERSEAS LINKS
At the request of BIALL, questions were asked for the second time to explore whether institutions provided law courses overseas and, if so, the nature of the support the UK-based library and information service was required to provide, to the overseas organisation and its students.
Of the 95 institutions which responded 18 or 19% (2009: 19 or 21%) did provide law courses overseas, either by means of a partnership with an overseas institution or by franchise. They were 7 old universities (2009: 8) and 11 new universities (2009: 11). The courses offered by respondents were located in 19 countries (2009: 16): Malaysia (4 respondents), Singapore, Mauritius and Greece (2 respondents each), Albania, Belgium, Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Germany, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Ukraine (all one each).
One of the 18 institutions aimed their courses at pre-degree level (2009: 0). Nine focused on undergraduate (2009: 10) and 11 on postgraduate level courses (2009: 13).
The most frequent type of support provided by library and information staff was providing email support for overseas registered students in finding resources (10 respondents. 2009: 11), technical assistance to overseas library and information staff (7 respondents. 2009: 6), setting up a subscription to new electronic materials (5 respondents. 2009: 2), providing access to support materials via the VLE (5 respondents. 2009: 1), providing access to new electronic resources (4 respondents. 2009: 7), the purchase and shipping out of print materials (4 respondents. 2009: 1) and creating lists of materials to be purchased by the overseas institution (3 respondents. 2009: 5).
Other forms of support included occasionally providing inter-library loans, providing a law librarian on site, providing identical electronic access as home students, information skills sessions via the VLE, a visit to the site by the law librarian, and video podcasts. Six institutions provided no support at all (2009: 3).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I must thank Dr Peter Clinch whose survey template and previous high quality surveys I have used throughout this work. He was also extremely helpful when handing over the responsibility for managing the annual survey from Cardiff University to IALS Library. I shall always be grateful for his kind assistance. Secondly my job has been made considerably easier by having Laura Griffiths, an Assistant Librarian at IALS, to fill the important administrative and statistical roles with her usual accuracy and efficiency. She has contributed significantly to the administration of the survey and helped me enormously by calculating many of the statistics for the survey report.
