[Prev Page] [Next Page] [Contents]
The result of the questionnaire survey may be categorised into two major perspectives, that of the higher education institutions and that of the publishers.
It is clear from questionnaires aimed at universities that the use of course readers in the UK is not, at present, playing more than a minor part in curriculum support, and consequently few universities approach the issue in terms of formal institutional policies. However it is also clear that a fair proportion of internal printing within universities is in support of teaching and learning, and that a further proportion contains copyright material. This suggests that there is a dependence on course notes, which may include offprints or the like, which are not routinely packaged on behalf of students to add value.
Where course readers are provided, much of the production is done at departmental level rather than by any centralised service. And in production terms, the majority of universities appear to be using standard photocopy machines, although the majority of these also use a combination of facilities, both departmental and at central locations with old style offset printing and modern digital copiers both being well represented. There appears to be a drive to upgrade the quality of curriculum support materials though responses from academic staff to such initiatives appear to be generally indifferent.
In May 1993, new copyright regulations came into force which prohibited the packaging of materials into course readers in any systematic way and this change in the licence agreement appears to have had a significant impact on the production of course readers. Although a number of universities were planning to adopt this approach to one extent or another (although there didn't appear to be a clear pattern of development of central policies), the CLA regulations have negated such plans in several instances. In particular librarians felt that the impact of course readers on the library provision has not been significant to date and that unless and until CLA regulations are varied, or the whole process of copyright clearance significantly improved, then it was unlikely that any impact would be great. There were a host of comments pointing to the clumsiness of the CLARCS system and a strong argument that fees were too high and that copyright owners, through the CLA, were more concerned with policing than they were in facilitating higher education.
As to the economics, it appears that the majority of course readers, where they are produced, are `given' to students, with only a minority of universities actually selling them on. There is a general view that student `culture' is still against paying for materials in any significant way. And those institutions who have continued to produce course readers following the shift in copyright licence regulations, were typically spending less than £1,000 a year, which suggests a very low adoption nationally. This has to be compared with pre-1993, when one institution quoted the production of almost 6,000 readers.
Trying to ascertain how acceptable course readers are to students was always likely to be difficult, but the anecdotal evidence through the survey suggests that most people agree that students favour this approach. The most common criticism is the need to avoid `spoonfeeding'. The policy statements which were received as a result of the survey point to an emphasis on core or foundation material, servicing a large number of students, presumably in an attempt to get basic information across as smoothly and systematically as possible. It should also be noted that derived course readers are not the only possible approach - one or two institutions indicated that they were authoring material internally whilst others suggest a drive towards electronic approaches such as Hypertext or multi-media based delivery of interactive material.
The survey suggested that electrocopyright does not seem to be a significant issue for the universities at this time.
We can summarise the views of publishers very succinctly in that few express any great concern about the advent of course readers, which may simply be a matter that they have had very little impact to date. This is not to say that publishers are against such techniques: almost 40% have no particular views and by far and away the majority are quite happy with the idea of an experiment with such techniques, even in the context of electronic storage and delivery. (In some ways publishers regard it as being better than no sale at all but with an underlying concern that too much course reader production could undermine sales of the original material).
As to the mechanisms for clearance of copyright, there are no clear patterns or preferences emerging. Indeed the rates for copyright fees appear to be set in a very ad hoc manner. Most publishers routinely receive only a small number of requests for copyright clearance although a proportion rate such requests as a `reasonable amount' or more (there are, for example, a variety of methods of applying fees including per impression, flat fees, per article, per chapter, per word and so on).
Publishers' experience with the CLARCS system appears to be patchy. The majority are generally happy with the CLA approach and with the Basic Higher Education Licence as an effective compensation mechanism. However there seems to be less support and/or knowledge of the CLARCS system probably due to its more recent introduction. A high proportion of publishers do not place their material with CLA in any event, and others prefer to negotiate rights beyond a small amount directly. There was, for example, a preference for direct negotiation of site licences with institutions for significant levels of copyright usage.
Regarding electronic publishing, although around 40% of publishers indicated they have some experience in this area, most of this experience could be described as `embryonic'. Even those companies who suggested that they had experience, were making comments such as `very limited experience', a `small number of requests (in the US)', `looking into it' and `just beginning'. And although the majority were generally nervous about the possible impact of electronic storage for their copyright material, almost 70% were interested in the idea of experimentation and/or partnerships with higher education to evaluate the potential and to better understand the economic models.
So, as with course readers, publishers seldom have formal policies of substance regarding electronic storage and distribution but their attitude to it is generally positive, with a majority planning to commence or extend their activities in the short term and with a strong interest in experimentation.
[Prev Page] [Next Page] [Contents]