[Prev Page] [Next Page] [Contents]
Of 92 questionnaires sent out, the valid response was 58 (63%). Most respondents (52%) were from universities with a student population in the range 5,000-10,000 FTE.
Most book budgets (60%) were in the range £200,000-400,000, being evenly split between two categories: £200,000-300,000 and £300,000-400,000.
Most journal budgets (86%) were above £200,000, being evenly split between three categories; £200,000-300,000, £300,000-400,000 and >£400,000.
Extent of use of course readers
The majority (67%) of respondents classed their use of course readers as being `little' on a five level scale ranging from `nil' to `extensive'.
Few respondents (4%) indicated that their organisation had a formal policy concerning the production of course readers as opposed to the use of textbooks and class handouts.
Few respondents (4%) had formal evidence of the production of readers in their institutions.
Only 51% of respondents were able to estimate the proportion of the material printed in their university which serves as curriculum support. In 38% of these cases the proportion was below 5% of the total printing and in 33% of cases within the range 25-50%.
Only 43% of respondents were able to provide an estimate of the proportion of this curriculum support material which is copyright. 35% of these estimated that it was between 5% and 25%, and a further 35% that it was below 5%.
Production of course readers
82% of respondents indicated that course readers were assembled to a `print-ready' stage solely by departments.
The most popular facility used for the production of high-volume course reader-type material is standard (non-digital) photocopying machines. These are used by 38 of the 49 respondents. Offset printing is used by 18 of the respondents and digital copiers by 11. Most universities use a combination of facilities.
Funding issues
No respondent indicated that the production of course readers had been subsidised by the university book budget.
16% of respondents sell all their readers to students and 22% distribute their readers gratis. 43% use a combination of the two alternatives. It appears, however, that the majority of readers are gratis to students.
Only 10% of respondents had a policy for the recovery of costs of gratis readers, and only 23% had a policy for the recovery of costs of readers sold to students.
Copyright issues
Most respondents (94%) had taken some action as a result of the copyright regulations covering course readers which came into force in May 1993. 43 of the 47 respondents had circulated advice to staff. 24 of them had reduced production of readers, and of this group 38% indicated that their production had previously been `reasonable', 29% `little' and 17% `extensive'.
In 44% of respondent universities, copyright clearance is handled solely by departments, in 21% solely by a central operation and in 27% a combination of both.
The most popular option for payment of copyright fees is that it is the responsibility of departments (28 of the 45 respondents). In only 7 are copyright fees paid solely from central funds; in 10 a combination of the two methods is used. Only 5 respondents indicated that some of the costs are on-charged to students.
42% of respondents paid £1-1,000 in copyright fees over the previous year, and 17% nothing. 29% did not know how much had been spent.
Only 2 respondents had sought electrocopying licences from publishers to produce course materials.
Student attitudes
Although very few universities had hard evidence of students' feelings about course readers, the majority view of respondents was that students would welcome them.
Future plans
38% of respondents indicated that they had either no plans or no known plans to use course readers, and 25% had positive plans to do so.
21% of respondents indicated that any plans would be departmental and not central to the institution.
11% indicated that plans had been held in abeyance following changes in the CLA licence.
Impact on libraries
Only 16% of respondents reported any effect on the library following the advent of course readers and 49% predicted a future effect. Qualitative responses indicated that the degree of any impact would be dependent on whether the existing CLA regulations and system for clearance persisted. Areas of provision that had been affected or were expected to be affected are key text and offprint collections and to a lesser extent course reader collections and journal holdings.
`Quality Managers' or equivalent were approached in universities where the Librarian had indicated that information about course readers was available only at a departmental level. Of 15 questionnaires sent out, the valid response was 7 (47%).
Use of course readers
Most respondents (86%) had plans of various kinds for developing the use of course readers for curriculum support.
All readers produced by the respondent universities were prepared for printing either within departments or by a mixture of departmental and centralised services: none were wholly centralised. The same applied to printing of the readers, and to the location of printing facilities.
The majority of course readers are assembled solely by departments and printed using a combination of departmental and central facility photocopiers.
All respondents reported that readers were gratis to students in their universities, and only one respondent claimed the existence of a policy for recovering production, copyright and other publishing costs.
The majority of respondents were able to provide evidence of student attitudes to the use of course readers as opposed to buying texts or copying references. These tend to be in favour of readers.
It was estimated by most respondents that less than 25% of the curriculum support material produced departmentally contained copyright material. In 57% of cases copyright clearance was done by departments, the remainder being cleared either centrally or by a mixture of both departmental and centralised services. No respondents were paying copyright clearance fees out of a central fund.
Of those universities who had paid any copyright clearance fees in the previous 12 months and were aware of the amount, all reported paying less than £1,000. None of the respondents had sought electrocopying licence arrangements from publishers.
Quality initiatives
Initiatives to improve quality in curriculum support materials had been implemented in two-thirds of respondent universities, commencing either 2 or 5 years previously, and receiving a predominantly indifferent response from staff. No information was available regarding students' feelings about the initiatives. Respondents were divided on whether or not they had plans for new quality strategies.
Of 37 potential respondents approached, valid responses were obtained from 32 (86%).
75% of respondents did not have a formal policy on use of their published material in course readers. Of those that did, there were no comprehensive policies - mainly just `cleared by CLA'.
Mechanism for copyright clearance: even preference between direct approach (31%) and CLA (28%) with remainder (41%) preferring a combination.
Volume of requests: mainly (59%) a little, 34% a reasonable amount, 6% a lot.
Preference for contact with institutions: 28% with departments, 22% a central contact, mainly (50%) no preference.
Criteria for setting rates: a variety, mainly ad hoc with volume the most common factor.
Method of applying fees: rate per impression dominant at 34%, flat fee next at 21%, then 15% for each of per article, per chapter and `other' (mainly per word).
Feelings about course readers: 42% in favour, 39% no preference, 19% against.
Subscription to CLA: 69% do, 31% don't.
Effectiveness of CLA licence as compensation: mainly (74%) yes, 13% no, 13% don't know.
Effectiveness of CLARCS as compensation: mainly (50%) yes, 23% no, 27% don't know.
Proportion of publications handled by CLA: mainly (55%) all, 27% some, 18% don't know.
Limit on clearance fees handled by CLA: mainly (45%) none, 27% yes (£500 most common), 27% don't know.
Experience with electronic storage etc - general: mainly (59%) none, 38% yes.
Experience with electronic storage etc - HE: mainly (69%) none, 25% yes, and of the latter group 40% said there were site licensing arrangements.
Formal policy on electronic storage etc: majority (77%) none, 23% yes (mostly `looking at it').
Feelings about electronic storage arrangements with institutions: predominantly in favour - 13% strongly and 28% in favour, 31% no preference, 28% against.
Plans to commence electronic storage/delivery activity in next year: mainly (59%) yes, 41% no.
Method of setting up licences: 38% prefer direct, 19% via broker, 19% had no preference and 25% were not applicable.
A high score of 68% of respondents said they would consider taking part in an experimental project, with 19% against and 10% don't knows.
Of the methods of compensating for use of an electronic storage system in an institution, 28% favoured pro rata, 16% a flat fee for a period, 19% a combination and the remaining 37% were don't knows, not applicable etc.
The literature search identified only two publications of direct relevance to this study. The first is a report by Osborn (1979) on a series of copyright clearing exercises conducted between 1976 and 1978. The second is the report written by Akeroyd (1994) which formed an earlier stage of this project.
Attitudes to copyright
Although published 15 years ago, many of Osborn's findings concerning the attitudes of publishers are consistent with opinions expressed in our survey. Opinions regarding reprographic permissions for educational use appear to have changed little in almost 20 years: both our survey and requests made by South Bank University to publishers for reprographic permissions have met with similar responses and a lack of formal policies.
With specific reference to course readers, however, publishers now appear to be more accepting of the concept. The following reservations were identified by Osborn: disapproval where the book is still in print; the need to protect authors' interests; the need to protect publishers' interests; the difficulty in control of course reader distribution; unfair competition where course readers are prepared as not-for-profit publications.
Further relevant material was identified from a report by Morley (1994) based on his recent survey of publishers and librarians. The main conclusion was that `there is great conflict between the attitudes of publishers and information users'. Statistics of permissions requests and royalty revenues received by publishers are documented. Librarians claim that `publishers are too fixed in their views about copying as an illegitimate activity', that seeking permissions is unnecessarily complicated in terms of administration and costs, and that there is insufficient legal guidance.
Attitudes towards electronic copyright
Publisher and user attitudes towards electrocopying have been increasingly documented over the last year, but with little direct reference to the delivery of course readers combining specific texts to support education. Muir and Oppenheim (1993) cited literature and publisher attitudes against the concept. In contrast, their survey of UK academic and research libraries reveals that 98% of respondents favour blanket licensing to cover electrocopyright.
Use, production and funding of course readers
No literature on these aspects of the study was identified, except that librarians were found to be operating on a cost-recovery basis if any charges were made to students.
[Prev Page] [Next Page] [Contents]