SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
• The response rate was 80.36% (section 3);
• There was a marked increase in universities enrolling PhD and MPhil students, with 100% of old universities and 83% of new universities enrolling these type of students (section 5);
• Like last time, 20% of respondents 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. However, there was still some fluidity in the range of subscriptions held, for 18% of respondents were considering cancelling a subscription to an electronic source before the end of July 2018 whilst only 12% were considering a new subscription before the same date (section 7);
• JSTOR was still the most widely used general database in law libraries (section 8);
• Nexis UK and Proquest continued to be the two most widely subscribed-to newspaper databases which are used to contribute significantly to teaching and research in law schools (section 8);
• The most popular free website with legal content which assists teaching staff and students in their law studies and which they access frequently continues to be BAILII or the British and Irish Legal Information Institute at www.bailii.org/ which is based at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (section 9);
• Ex Libris (offering products such as Alma, Aleph and Voyager) was the most popular supplier of library management systems to academic law libraries in the UK and Ireland (section 10);
• Mean expenditure on law materials decreased by 2.13% across all respondents on the level in 2016. Old universities reported a 5.99% increase in mean expenditure on 2016, whilst new universities reported a 9.29% decrease in mean expenditure on 2016 (section 11.1);
• This year the mean spend per student at new universities continues to be slightly higher than the mean spend per student at old universities. Mean law materials expenditure per student in new universities was £220, whereas in old universities it was £219. The trend in this area is therefore of a narrowing gap between sectors (section 11.1);
• The proportion of total law material expenditure on monographs reduced to 22%, serials continued its downward trend to its lowest ever percentage of 35% and databases increased by 3% to 43% (section 11);
• Separate results on overall expenditure on law library materials in institutions not providing vocational or professional award courses are provided (section 11.7);
• The highest proportion of income to fund the acquisition of law materials continued to come from general library funds (section 12);
• 66% of all law schools made no contribution at all to funding the acquisition of law materials. Moreover, of those law schools that did contribute, they appeared to do so less generously with the mean amount contributed by law schools decreasing by 41% on last year (section 12);
• For the first time we asked if it would be useful to revise and update the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) Statement of Standards (2009) [http://www.legalscholars.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SLS-Library-for-a-Modern-Law-School-Statement-2009.pdf]. 83% of those respondents who answered this question agreed that the standards should be revised, whilst 17% replied, “don't know”. Nobody disagreed (section 13);
• We also asked if it would be useful to revise and update the indicative list of resources which were included as an appendix to the 2009 standards. 84% of those respondents who answered this question agreed, whilst 12.5% replied “don't know”. Two respondents (or 3.5%) said “no” to this question (section 13);
• A higher percentage (18%) of responding libraries did not have any library staff which spent 50% or more of their working time on the care and servicing of the law collection. Several explained that their activities were being diluted into library-wide responsibilities or the law collection was being serviced from a team of staff with wider subject duties (section 14);
• Overall average staffing numbers decreased in old universities to 3.3 FTE and decreased in new universities to 1.5 FTE (section 14);
• 82% of respondents had at least one member of law library staff who had a LIS qualification, although for 25 institutions this was less than one full-time member of staff (section 14.4);
• As found in previous surveys, library staff with law qualifications were much more common in old universities (section 14.4);
• Law librarians in almost all responding institutions continued to be involved in providing legal research skills training. In 75% of institutions it was in partnership with law school lecturers and in half of the institutions in a programme involving free external trainers supplied by the major database providers (section 15.1);
• Librarians were involved in training for all types of course though not all their contributions were integrated with the law teaching curriculum (section 15.3);
• In general, the average amount of teaching received by an undergraduate, a postgraduate professional and a taught postgraduate has increased. However, a decrease in the average amount is noted for research postgraduates (section 15.4);
• On most measures, librarians in both old and new universities appear to be spending slightly less time teaching than previously (section 15.5);
• Across all categories of student, large group lecture sessions were the most popular delivery method (section 15.6);
• The overall number of institutions integrating information literacy principles within the law undergraduate programme decreased (section 15.7);
• A growing 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 the purchase and shipping out of new print materials (section 16);
• The most popular other activities in both old and new universities continued to be, firstly, creating web subject and research guides, followed by providing content for law library web pages, providing content for social networking sites and providing content for web portals or gateways. Writing published articles continued to be the least popular other activity (section 17).
1. INTRODUCTION
The following report outlines the activities and funding of academic law libraries in the UK and Ireland in the academic year 2016/2017. The figures have been taken from the results of a survey 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 the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS).
I shall attempt to draw comparisons with previous surveys where helpful. In particular “2016” refers to the 2015/2016 data (Gee, Reference Gee2017), “2015” refers to the 2014/2015 data (Gee, Reference Gee2016) and “2014” refers to the 2013/2014 data (Gee, Reference Gee2015). All the surveys referred to are referenced at the end of the report.
Finally I am very pleased to note that this ongoing research project to publish a report on the SLS/BIALL annual survey of law libraries in the UK and Ireland received national recognition in June 2016 when it received the BIALL Wallace Breem Memorial Award: http://ials.sas.ac.uk/news/Library_Wallace_Breem_Memorial_Award_2016.htm.
2. METHODOLOGY
The survey methodology followed the improvements made a few years ago, conveniently making an electronic editable PDF form version of the survey questionnaire available to be completed. In February 2018 an email containing both a link to the survey questionnaire on the IALS website and an attached editable PDF form was dispatched to 112 institutions in the UK and Ireland. Respondents could therefore complete the electronic questionnaire at one sitting, save it under the name of their institution and email it back to us. Alternatively they could print out the questionnaire to work on over a period of time and then complete the electronic version, save it and email it back to us. We were also still happy to receive completed paper versions of the survey questionnaire by post if this was the method preferred by individual respondents.
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.
This year's survey is funded by the British and Irish Association of Law Librarians (BIALL). A copy of the questionnaire is available on the IALS website at: http://ials.sas.ac.uk/slsbiall-academic-law-library-survey.
3. RESPONSE RATES
This year 90 forms were returned from 112 libraries representing a response rate of 80.36%, a decrease on last year's record of 86.61%. I am grateful to all those law librarians who took the time to respond. Another response rate of over 80% is very welcome and should permit the presentation of a reasonably accurate picture of academic law libraries in the UK and Ireland. A complete list of the academic law libraries that returned a completed 2016/2017 survey questionnaire is contained in the Appendix.
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
Thirty-nine old universities responded (43 last year), as did 48 new universities (51 last year) and 3 other institutions (3 last year). The response profile has therefore changed slightly, with four fewer results for old universities and three fewer results from new universities. This may affect 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.
Percentages from this point onwards have generally 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.
83 out of the total of 90 respondents gave figures for student numbers, ranging from 50 to 7,000 (50 to 12,047 in 2016). The median number of law students was 666 (643 in 2016) and the mean number was 833 (937 in 2016), the mean figure has therefore decreased significantly year-on-year.
Respondents in old universities reported student numbers between 50 and 2,100 (50 and 2,091 last year), with a mean of 897 (883 last year) and a median of 834 (801 last year).
In new universities, the range was 128 to 7,000 (100 to 12,047 last year), with a mean of 809 (1,033 last year) and a median of 540 (505 last year).
Among the 3 other institutions, the range was 90 to 150 (64 to 202 in 2016). The mean was 120 (124 in 2016) and the median was 120 (106 in 2016).
An upward trend is evident in the average number of students attending responding old universities in 2016/17 as compared with the previous year. Whilst a downward trend is evident in the average number of students attending responding new universities in 2016/17 as compared with the previous year.
89 or 99% of respondents (96 or 99% in 2016) offered an exempting undergraduate law degree.
25 or 28% of respondents (31 or 32% in 2016) hosted the Legal Practice Course (LPC) or Bar Professional Training Course or Diploma in Professional Legal Practice (Scotland) or Professional Practice Course (Ireland) or Degree of Barrister-at-law (Ireland). This represents 21% of old university respondents, 55% of new universities and 100% of other institutions.
21 or 23% (22 or 23% in 2016) of respondents provided courses leading to other law professional awards, such as the CPE or Chartered Institute of Legal Executives qualification. 18% of old universities, 27% of new universities and 33% of other institutions ran such courses.
The final category was for other taught courses, such as the LLM, which led to a postgraduate award in law. 80 or 89% (86 or 89% in 2016) of institutions ran these postgraduate courses, including 100% of old and 85% of new universities and 0% other institutions. The movements in the percentages of respondents offering particular courses this year are small and are probably mainly due to changes in the survey profile.
Respondents also indicated whether the law school enrolled students onto research courses, such as those leading to PhD and MPhil. Overall 79 or 88% (79 or 81% in 2016) of institutions indicated that they did. 100% of old universities, 83% 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 percentage for old universities continues to be 100% and the trend is up again for the new universities at 83% (73% in 2016 and 80% in 2015, 72% in 2014 and 66% in 2013).
Graph 1. Location of the law library.
6. LOCATION OF THE LAW LIBRARY
Respondents were asked to indicate, from a list, which most closely matched the circumstances in their institution.
As the above pie chart demonstrates, across all respondents:
• 21% had a single law library in a location separated from other subject collections (23% in 2016). Of these, there were 12 (2016: 12) old universities, 7 (2016: 10) new and 0 (2016: 0) other institutions.
• 43% had a law collection not so separated but shelved so as to form a single identifiable unit (37% in 2016). These included 15 (2016: 15) old universities, 23 (2016: 20) new and 1 (2016: 1) other institution.
• 16% had several law collections each in a different location (20% in 2016). These included 6 (2016: 8) old, 8 (2016: 11) new universities and 0 (2016: 0) other institutions.
• 20% had a law collection dispersed wholly or partly among other subject collections (20% in 2016). Of these, 6 (2016: 8) were old universities, 10 (2016: 10) were new universities and 2 (2016: 2) other institutions.
31% (2016: 28%) of old universities responding had a single and separate law library, while 15% (2014: 20%) of new universities and 0% (2016: 0%) of other institutions had a single and separate law library.
39% (2016: 35%) of old universities described their law collection as being shelved so as to form a single identifiable unit but not separate from other collections. Forty eight percent (2016: 39%) of new universities described their law collection in a similar way, and 33% (2016: 33%) of other responding institutions.
15% (2016: 19%) of old universities had several law collections, each in a different location, but 17% (2016: 22%) of new universities and no other institutions (0%) reported several collections (2016: 0%).
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 BPT, in addition to a main law collection. Other respondents mentioned other reasons for separate locations, for example, one respondent mentioned that a small collection was needed in Athens for LLM students.
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 20% of institutions reporting dispersed collections.
15% of old universities, 20% of new universities and 66.7% of other institutions had law collections wholly or partly dispersed among other subject collections. Last year the figure was 20% overall: in detail, in 2016, 18% of old, 19% of new and 66.7% of other institutions had dispersed collections.
To conclude, the overall percentage of dispersed collections remains the same at 20% for both this year and last year.
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 2016/2017. The results below therefore show the position in February 2018.
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 below.
Graph 2. Top 10 legal databases.
The law databases’ academic market is still fluid but much less so than several years ago and generally very similar to last year. On a positive note, 12% of respondents (9% last year) were planning new subscriptions before the end of July 2018. However on the negative side, 18% (14% last year) noted planned or recent cancellations before the financial year end.
Like last year, a small number of law databases continue to dominate the market. According to the snapshot survey results using exactly the same survey questions format as in the previous year, in February 2018 Westlaw UK was taken by 90 respondents (100%) and Lexis®Library was taken by 88 of respondents (98%). Last year Westlaw UK was also taken by 100% of respondents and Lexis®Library was taken by 99%. HeinOnline, kept the third position it first gained in 2007 being taken by 73 or 81% of respondents (last year: 81%). Jordan's Family Law Online remained in fourth place with 58% (65% last year).
Of the other popular databases mentioned by respondents, Lawtel UK remained in fifth place with 34% of respondents (35% last year), i-law moved up to sixth place with 31% of respondents (32% last year) and the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law moved up to seventh place with 28% of respondents (28% last year). JustCite was in eighth place with 27% (34% last year), Practical Law was in ninth place with 18% (13% last year) and Kluwer Arbitration was tenth with 13% (15% last year).
Looking at the returns for Westlaw in more detail, no new subscriptions were planned, although one respondent reported they were thinking about a new subscription to Westlaw IE and one respondent reported they were thinking about a new subscription to “a new Westlaw platform”. One respondent reported that they already subscribed to Westlaw China, one reported they already subscribed to Westlaw e-books, four reported that they already subscribed to IDS Employment and one reported they already subscribed to Westlaw Australia.
71 respondents or 79% subscribed to Westlaw International (79% last year). Six respondents subscribed to Westlaw IE (Irish Law). 3 were based in the Irish Republic, 1 from Northern Ireland and 2 from the UK mainland.
Respondents were asked to indicate the subscriptions they took to particular parts of the Lexis®Library product. One respondent reported that they were planning a new subscription to Lexis PSL, but two respondents reported that they were planning to cancel their subscription to Lexis PSL.
The Journals module and the UK cases module were the most popular products, both taken by 91% of respondents. The UK legislation module was taken by 90% of respondents, Halsbury's Laws was taken by 82% of respondents and UK newspapers on Lexis by 68%. The International Materials module was taken by 66% of respondents and the Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents in electronic format was taken by 53%. 13 respondents or 14% took Lexis PSL.
28 respondents ticked “other Lexis Library products” in the survey questionnaire. However most did not specify specific products so it is difficult to give a safe popularity percentage split between the other Lexis®Library products, other than to say that the following products were specifically mentioned by respondents: Commonwealth Collection, Current Awareness, Harvey's, Legal Alerter, Lexis Smart Forms, “Practice Area”, Practitioner Package, Scots Law Pack, Valentines on Northern Ireland law, Local Government, Jordan's Family Law and “Various loosleafs”.
Two respondents stated that they subscribed to LexisNexis®Juris Classeur and two respondents took Lexis Middle East Law as standalone products.
HeinOnline retained its third position with the same percentage as last year, being taken by 73 or 81% of respondents (last year: 81%). Furthermore one respondent reported that they were planning to subscribe to the HeinOnline Academic Core module and one reported they were planning to subscribe to HeinOnline US Congressional Documents module.
Jordan's Family Law Online remained in fourth place with 52 respondents or 58% (65% last year). In addition two respondents reported plans to cancel their existing direct subscription because they wanted to access Jordan's via Lexis®Library in future. (Just to note that Jordan's Family Law Online was acquired by Lexis®Library in January 2016. The Jordan's Family Law Online platform was then switched off in December 2017 and the content is now only accessible via Lexis®Library. The changeover happened around the same time as the survey questionnaire was being completed so this may have affected the results).
Lawtel UK remained in fifth place with 34% of respondents (35% last year). One respondent also reported “likely” plans to cancel their Lawtel UK subscription because of low usage and anticipated budget restrictions.
i-law moved up to sixth place with 31% of respondents (32% last year). In addition one respondent had plans to subscribe to i-law: Maritime and Commercial, whilst one respondent had plans to cancel an existing subscription to i-law: Insurance and Reinsurance.
The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law moved up to seventh place with 28% of respondents (28% last year). JustCite was in eighth place with 27% (34% last year). In addition, several respondents reported that they were considering transferring from JustCite to JustisOne UK. Practical Law was in ninth place with 18% (13% last year) and Kluwer Arbitration was tenth with 13% (15% last year).
Other than the databases already discussed in detail, the following databases were mentioned by 10% or more respondents:
Databases cited by 3 or more respondents included Oxford Reports on International Law (7 respondents), OGEL – Oil, Gas and Energy Law (6 respondents each); Beck Online, Kluwer Law International and Oxford Public International Law (5 respondents each); and Hague Academy Collected Courses, Investment Arbitration Reporter and WorldTradeLaw.net (4 respondents each). Dalloz.fr; Foreign Law Guide, IBFD, Investor-State Law Guide, Kemp on Lawtel, LLMC Digital, Manupatra, PKULaw and Trade Law Guide (3 respondents each).
In total 21 respondents (or 23%) subscribed to Justis products other than Justcite. Although not all respondents gave full details of their Justis subscriptions the following limited information was reported: 6 respondents subscribed to JustisOne, 4 respondents subscribed to International Law Reports, 3 subscribed to UK legislation, 3 subscribed to Irish Reports and 2 to Irish Legislation. One respondent each subscribed to BLISS, Caribbean Law Reports, OPIL, Parliament, Singapore Law Reports and Times Law Reports.
The median number of legal database subscriptions taken in responding libraries in February 2018 was 6 (February 2017: 6). The numbers of legal databases offered by institutions ranged from 1 to 57 (1 to 49 last year).
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. Seventy nine respondents (88%) noted other subscription databases which contribute significantly to the teaching and research work of their law school. This is the same percentage of respondents as last year.
JSTOR was again the most widely used general database with 61 or 68% of respondents (67% last year). House of Commons Parliamentary Papers (HCPP) was mentioned by 56 or 62% of respondents (63% last year) and gained second place. Third was EBSCO Business Source with 52 or 58% (58% last year). Fourth was ISI Web of Science with 45 or 50% of respondents (55% last year). Fifth was EBSCO Academic with 29 or 32% of respondents (31% last year) and joint sixth was ASSIA and Criminal Justice Abstracts with 27 or 30% of respondents a piece (30% and 28% respectively last year). Joint eighth was SCOPUS and Proquest with 13 or 14% of respondents a piece.
The following non-law databases were each used by 3 respondents: Science Direct, IBSS and Project Muse. The following databases were each used by 2 respondents: ABI Inform, Box of Broadcasts, FT.com, Public Information Online and Sage Research Methods. A further 38 non-law databases were each used by only one respondent.
By February 2018, 57 or 63% of respondents used a web-based combined newspaper database to access the full range of newspapers (64% last year), although not every respondent specified a particular database and many respondents subscribed to more than one database. Taking into account all those respondents who did specify particular databases, the top two suppliers were again Nexis UK used by 32 respondents (30 last year) and Proquest with 17 respondents (17 last year). Gale NewsVault was taken by 5 respondents (6 last year). Factiva was taken by 4 respondents (5 last year) and Gale Infotrack was taken by 3 respondents (2 last year). Newsbank, UK Press Online, European Newsstream and Times Digital Archive were taken by 2 respondents each. The following databases were mentioned once-a-piece: Access World News; British newspapers archive; International Newsstream and International Newsstand. The results for this year indicate the continued popularity of Nexis UK and Proquest. Otherwise the results show only slight changes in the subscriber newspaper databases used to contribute significantly to teaching and research in the law school.
9. MOST POPULAR FREE WEBSITES WITH LEGAL CONTENT
For the third time we asked respondents to list, to the best of their knowledge, the names of up to three free websites / databases with legal content which assist teaching staff and students in their law studies and which they access frequently. General search engines such as Google were excluded. The ten most frequently mentioned free websites / databases with legal content are displayed in the graph below.
Graph 3. Top 10 free websites / databases with legal content.
Seventy seven or 86% of respondents provided this information, although not all respondents listed three sites. The top ten sites are listed below in descending order of popularity:
1. BAILII or the British and Irish Legal Information Institute at www.bailii.org/ which is based at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in London.
52 or 58% of respondents (70% in 2015)
2. EUR-Lex at www.eur-lex.europa.eu/
27 or 30% (25% in 2015)
24 or 27% (31% in 2015)
= 3. Cardiff Index to Legal Abbreviations at www.legalabbrevs.cardiff.ac.uk/
24 or 27% (17% in 2015)
5. www.parliament.uk (including Hansard)
13 or 14% (11% in 2015)
6. HUDOC – European Court of Human Rights at www.hudoc.echr.coe.int
6 or 7% [5%]
7. WorldLII or World Legal Information Institute at www.worldlii.org/
5 or 6% (11% in 2015)
= 8. City University's Lawbore at http://lawbore.net/
4 or 4% (4% in 2015)
= 8. OSCOLA at https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/publications/oscola
4 or 4% (4% in 2015)
= 10. IALS - Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at ials@sas.ac.uk
3 or 3% (2% in 2015)
= 10. EUROPA – EU website at www.europa.eu/
3 or 3% (8% in 2015)
The following free websites were mentioned by 2 respondents:
1. Scottish Courts Website at https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/
2. Courts Service, Ireland at Courts.ie
3. UK Government at Gov.uk
4. US Department of Justice at Justice.gov
The following free unique websites were mentioned by one respondent only:
• IALS Current Legal research Topics database - CLRT at https://ials.sas.ac.uk/clrt-current-legal-research-topics-database
• Crown Prosecution Service at https://www.cps.gov.uk/
• Court of Justice of the EU – Curia at https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/
• IALS Library's internet portal for law (Eagle-i) at ttp://ials.sas.ac.uk/eaglei/project/eiproject.htm
• EISIL at http://www.eisil.org/
• Federal Register of Legislation (AU) at https://www.legislation.gov.au/
• FLARE Index to Treaties at https://ials.sas.ac.uk/digital/ials-digital-resources/flare-index-treaties
• Globalex at http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex//index.html
• HM Courts & Tribunals service at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service
• International Court of Justice website at http://www.icj-cij.org/en
• Inner Temple Library at https://www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk/
• IrLII at: https://www.ucc.ie/academic/law/irlii/index.php
• Lexology at https://www.lexology.com/
• National Archives at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
• Houses of the Oireachtas website at https://www.oireachtas.ie/
• Prisons Reform Trust at http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/
• Scottish Law Commission at http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/
• Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) at http://www.legalscholars.ac.uk/
• UK Supreme Court at https://www.supremecourt.uk/
• UN website at http://www.un.org/en/index.html
• United National Treaty Series at https://treaties.un.org/pages/AdvanceSearch.aspx?tab=UNTS&clang=_en
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) Decisions at https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac
• World Trade Organisation – WTO at https://www.wto.org/
• Delia Venables website at www.venables.co.uk
10. MOST POPULAR LIBRARY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SUPPLIERS
For the third time we asked respondents to provide us with the supplier and product names of their library management system in order to establish which are the most popular library management system suppliers used by academic law libraries in the UK and Ireland. Eighty seven or 97% of respondents provided this information. All the mentioned systems and suppliers are displayed in the graph below, and Ex Libris (offering products such as Ex Libris - Alma, Aleph and Voyager) was the most popular supplier.
Graph 4. Top library management system suppliers.
The top library management system suppliers are listed below in descending order of popularity:
1. Ex Libris - Alma (27), Aleph (8) and Voyager (1)
Mentioned by 36 respondents (39 in 2015).
2. Innovative Interfaces Inc.: Sierra (13) and Millennium (5)
Mentioned by 18 respondents (15 in 2015).
3. Capita: including Talis and Alto
Mentioned by 12 respondents (18 in 2015).
4. Siris Dynix: including Horizon and Symphony
Mentioned by 11 respondents (9 in 2015).
5. Koha
Mentioned by 4 respondents.
A further 6 library management system products were mentioned by one respondent each: Ebsco EDS; Heritage; Info V-Smart; Kuali Ole; Soprana; Worldshare (OCLC).
Some respondents also reported using their library management system alongside the Primo (Ex Libris) product for “resource discovery”.
11. EXPENDITURE
78 of the 90 libraries (or 87% of respondents) were able to provide total expenditure figures for 2016/2017. Those respondents who did not respond either could not disaggregate law expenditure from other subjects or were not prepared to provide the information.
11.1 Total expenditure on law materials
Total expenditure on the acquisitions of law materials ranged from £13,108 to £1,500,000 (2016: £9,449 to £1,305,000). Mean expenditure was £167,436 (2016: £171,073), a 2.13% decrease on 2016. This small decrease in expenditure on 2016 (following on from a 7.46% decrease and a 2% increase in previous years) is of concern, although to sound a note of caution the decrease may be partly a reflection of the changing pool of survey respondents.
It is helpful in understanding these changes to compare the expenditure in the different types of institution.
Old universities: 32 out of a possible 39 responses (2016: 38 out of 43)
Range from £45,665 to £795,400; median £156,069 (decreased by 2.38% on 2016); mean £207,561 (increased by 5.99% on 2016). 75% of old universities spent at least £83,346 (down 17.25% on last year). 25% spent more than £242,256 (down 2.19% on last year).
New universities: 44 out of a possible 48 responses (2016: 44 out of 51)
Range £13,108 to £1,500,000; median £97,027 (down 7.5% on last year); mean £144,437 (down 9.29% on last year). 75% of new universities spent at least £63,000 (down 3.4% on last year) and 25% spent more than £143,845 (down 8.28% on last year).
Other institutions: 2 responses out of a possible 3 (2016: 3 out of 3)
This sample is too small to be meaningful or anonymous.
Based on the means, these results seem to indicate that expenditure on law materials has increased in old universities, but decreased more markedly in new universities.
For each law student in a typical university (looking at the median) £192.40 was spent on law materials. This is a small 0.14% increase on the figure for 2016.
However, the rate of increase has not been evenly distributed across the higher education sector. In an old university, median spend per student was higher at £193 (2016: £185) but for a student in a new university the median was lower at £186 (2016: £197), a narrowing gap between old and new universities of 3.9% (2016: 5.34%). As graph 5 illustrates, median spend per student at an old university was higher than at a new university. It also shows that the gap between old and new universities fluctuates over time but narrowed in 2016/2017 due to an increase in median expenditure in old universities and a slightly larger decrease in the median for new universities. Per capita expenditure at other types of institution increased substantially. However this marked statistical change is due to the very tiny sample and should be used with caution.
Taking the mean, rather than the median, the pattern is different but with the same narrowing of the gap between sectors. This year the mean spend per student at new universities continues to be slightly higher than the mean spend per student at old universities. Mean law materials expenditure per student in new universities was £220, down 4.95% from 2016 whereas in old universities it was £219, up 7.14% on 2016.
11.2 Monograph expenditure
74 respondents provided details of spending on books, the same as 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 £3,020 to £225,000 (2016: £1,877 to £290,940), with a mean of £35,683, a decrease of 7.7% on 2016 and a median of £23,912 a decrease of 13.11% on last year.
In 2017, on average, monograph acquisitions accounted for 22% of total law material expenditure (2016: 23%; 2015: 22%). The proportion of total expenditure spent on books ranged from 3% to 71% with a median of 19% (2016: 6% to 55% with a median of 22%).
Analysed by type of institution the figures for monograph expenditure were:
Old universities: 31 respondents (2016: 32)
Range £6,456 to £155,000; median £32,326, a decrease of 23% on last year; mean £45,479 a decrease of 0.69% on 2016. Mean of 22% of total law material expenditure (2016: 24%).
New universities: 40 respondents (2014: 39)
Range £3,198 to £225,000; median £22,706, an increase of 3.2% on last year; mean £29,573, a decrease of 16% on last year. Mean of 22% of total law material expenditure (2016: 22%).
Other institutions: 2 institutions (2016: 3)
The range, median and mean figures are not very useful because of the tiny sample. Mean of 18% of total law material expenditure (2016: 17%).
The mean figure for old universities showed a decrease of 0.69% in expenditure on monographs, whilst the mean figure for new universities showed a substantial decrease of 16%. The percentage of total law expenditure devoted to monographs has decreased by 2% to 22% for old universities and stayed the same for new universities at 22%. Please note that these figures may be partly a reflection of the changing pool of survey respondents.
11.3 Serials expenditure
70 respondents who gave any financial figures were able to provide a figure for their spending on serials, 4 fewer than last year. The questionnaire defined serials as law journals, statutes, law reports and loose-leaf updates.
As a mean, serials accounted for 35% of total law materials expenditure (2016: 37%). The proportion of expenditure given to serials ranged from 6% to 71% with a median of 35% (2016: 35%). Overall, serials expenditure ranged from £1,529 to £540,000, with a median of £42,829 and a mean of £64,402.
Analysed by type of institution the figures were:
Old universities: 29 responses (2016: 32)
Range £8,625 to £540,000; median £57,386, down 18% on last year; mean £95,003, down by 5.99% on last year. Mean of 39% of total law material expenditure (2016: 41%).
New universities: 39 responses (2016: 39)
Range £1,529 to £175,000; median £29,541, down 1.54% on last year; mean £44,288, down 17% on last year. Mean of 32% total law material expenditure (2016: 33%).
Graph 5. Library materials expenditure per student.
Other institutions: 2 responses (2016: 3)
The range, median and mean figures are not very useful because of the tiny sample. Mean of 45% of total law material expenditure (2016: 42%).
The percentage of total law expenditure devoted to serials has continued to fall for both old and new universities. Please note that these figures may be partly a reflection of the changing pool of survey respondents.
11.4 Database expenditure
Databases accounted for 43% of total law materials expenditure in the mean, ranging from 9% to 86% with a median of 43% (2016: mean of 40%, median of 39%). Of the 70 responses (2016: 71), expenditure ranged from £5,942 to £1,100,000 with a median of £47,118, up by 9.9% on last year, and a mean of £75,700, up by 13.81% on last year.
Analysed by type of institution the figures were:
Old universities: 29 respondents (2016: 30)
Range £20,422 to £212,983; median £64,443, an increase of 19% on last year; mean £78,663, up 23% on last year. Median 38% and mean 38% of total law material expenditure (2016: 33% and 34%).
New universities: 39 respondents (2016: 39)
Range £5,942 to £1,110,000; median £37,749, up 2% on 2016; mean £76,896 up 8% on last year. Median 45% and mean 47% of total law material expenditure (2016: 40% and 44%).
Other institutions: 2 respondents (2016: 3)
The range, median and mean figures are not very useful because of the tiny sample. Median and mean both 36% of total law material expenditure (2016: both 41%).
Median and mean spending on databases in old universities has increased significantly on last year. Median and mean spending on databases in new universities has increased more modestly on last year. The median and mean percentages of total law expenditure devoted to databases has continued to increase for both old and universities. Please note that these figures may be partly a reflection of the changing pool of survey respondents.
11.5 E-book expenditure
36 respondents provided details of spending on e-books (32 last year). It is important to point out that more respondents probably purchase e-books, but that they were not all able to provide discrete and accurate figures for this law expenditure alone owing to the way the university or college budget is divided amongst subject areas. As a consequence the following e-book expenditure figures should be treated with some caution, but they are of interest nevertheless.
Expenditure on e-books ranged from £367 to £60,000, with a mean of £12,474 and a median of £8,778.
Analysed by type of institution the figures for e-book expenditure were:
Old universities: 18 respondents (2016: 17)
Range £2,770 to £60,000; mean £17,009; median £10,618.
New universities: 18 respondents (2016: 15)
Range £367 to £27,320; mean £7,938; median £5,041.
Other institutions: 0 institution (2016: 0)
No data to calculate figures.
11.6 Other expenditure on law materials
Only 7 respondents noted “other” expenditure, 6 fewer than last year. Expenditure ranged from £17 to £66,139 (2016: £100 to £152,129), with a median of £1,026 (2016: £6,643) a 85% decrease, and a mean of £10,625 (2016: £24,526) a decrease of 57%.
Only 2 respondents specified what the “other” expenditure was spent on: 1 stated “ILL” and 1 stated “videos”.
11.7 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, do not offer vocational courses, such as the LPC, BPTC, Diploma in Professional Legal Practice (Scotland) or Professional Practice Course (Ireland) or Degree of Barrister-at-law (Ireland) or courses leading to professional awards, such as the CPE and CILEx. These institutions believe that vocational courses require the purchase of expensive practitioner materials and so the results given earlier in section 11 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 £13,108 to £795,400 (2016: £10,391 to £776,000). Mean expenditure was £148,199 (2016: £143,999), a 3% increase on 2016.
It is helpful in understanding these changes to compare the expenditure in the different types of institution.
Old universities: 28 respondents, 24 provided financial data (2016: 31, 29 provided financial data). Range £45,665 to £795,400 (2016: £16,666 to £776,000); median £161,956 (2016: £148,902), an increase on last year; mean £215,188 (2016: £197,417), an increase on last year.
New universities: 25 respondents, 24 providing financial data (2016: 25, 23 provided financial data). Range £13,108 to £260,675 (2016: £29,577 to £185,037); median £74,485 (2016: £72,692), an increase on 2016; mean £85,327 (2016: £82,456), an increase on last year.
Other institutions: 2 respondents (2016: 1)
Summary:
Old universities: Comparing these results with those in paragraph 11.1, the medians and means for old universities in this 11.7 group are only slightly higher than those in the 11.1 group.
New universities: More significant are the differences between the medians and means amongst new universities where the medians and means in the 11.7 group are significantly less than those in the 11.1 group. The reason for this lay in the numbers of students at each institution - those new universities which do not offer vocational courses have generally smaller numbers of students than those new universities that do, hence a smaller expenditure on the acquisition of library materials. This distinction is much less marked at old universities.
12. SOURCES OF INCOME
77 (2016: 84) 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, with all responding institutions receiving at least part of their income this way. Using the mean, 87% of old universities’, 97% of new universities’ and 100% of other institutions’ income for law library materials was from general library funds (90%, 94% and 100% last year). When the median is used the figures are 96%, 100% and 100% (2016: 100%, 100% and 100%). The decrease in the mean percentage for old universities indicates a reduced focus on general library funds.
Law schools contributed to funding the acquisition of law materials in 26 institutions (2016: 26). As has been noted in previous survey reports, a majority of law schools make no such contribution at all (66% this year, 69% in 2016). This conclusion is reflected in the fact that, only 56% (2016: 45%) of old university law schools, 19% (2016: 21%) of new university law schools and 0% (2016: 0%) of other institutions’ schools contributed something.
Of the law schools that contributed, the amount ranged from £1,136 to £164,982 (2016: £3,952 to £372,650). The median contribution was £14,691, a decrease of 21% on last year. The mean was £26,678, down 41% on last year.
For the libraries that received funds from the law school, these funds represented a mean of 15% of the total income for the purchase of law materials, with a median of 8% (26% and 18% last year). This year the mean percentage contributions by law schools based in old and new universities narrowed although new universities continued to contribute a higher mean percentage than old universities.
In the old universities, median law school funding for law materials was £16,596, down 3% on last year. The mean was £29,763, down by 46% on last year. In new universities the comparative figures were a median of £7,946, down by 60% on last year and a mean of £13,238 down by 50% on 2016.
In summary for law school contributions: two-thirds of all law schools (66%) made no contribution to funding the acquisition of law materials. Moreover there was a decrease in the old University law schools’ average contribution to the total funds for library materials and a decrease in the new university law school's average contribution to the total funds for library materials.
Seven institutions (2016: 7) reported receiving income from other university budgets for law materials. For these 6 old universities, 1 new universities and 0 other institutions, the amount of income from these sources ranged from £5,000 to £213,869 (2016: £4,250 to £123,831).
No respondents reported funding from user charging (2016: 1).
Finally, 2 institutions (2016: 2) reported receiving financial contributions towards law materials from outside bodies. The sums ranged from £18,500 to £131,545 (2016: £27,100 to £127,670), with a median income of £75,023 (2016: £77,385) and a mean income of £75.023 (2016: £77,385). These were both old universities.
12.1 Targeted funding from the 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. 25 respondents (28%) replied in the positive with many respondents mentioning more than one type of material. By far the most frequently mentioned was payment of, or contributions towards, the cost of electronic databases such as Lexis Library, Westlaw or HeinOnline - 15 respondents (2016: 17). Nine respondents noted that the law school contributed towards the cost of hard-copy law books, journals or reports (6 in 2016) ranging from research journals to specialist monographs to multiple copies of textbooks. Library materials for the Legal Practice Course or Bar Vocational Course were mentioned specifically by 3 respondents (3 in 2016) and contributions to e-books purchases was mentioned by 2 respondents (none in 2016).
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. Only 3 respondents (4 in 2016) received this additional funding. They indicated the total amount of the contribution, ranging from £3,664 to £47,000. Respondents reported receiving the additional funding for covering staffing costs.
13. SOCIETY OF LEGAL SCHOLARS (SLS) STATEMENT OF STANDARDS
For the first time we asked if it would be useful to revise and update the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) Statement of Standards (2009) [http://www.legalscholars.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SLS-Library-for-a-Modern-Law-School-Statement-2009.pdf]. 64 respondents (71%) answered this question, with 53 (or 83%) of these agreeing that the standards should be revised. 11 respondents (or 17%) replied, “don't know” and nobody said “no” to this question.
We also asked if it would be useful to revise and update the indicative list of resources which were included as an appendix to the 2009 standards. 54 (or 84%) of respondents agreed, whilst 8 (or 12.5%) replied “don't know”. Two respondents (or 3.5%) said “no” to this question.
14. 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.
16 (or 18%) of the 90 responding institutions had no staff which met this criterion (2016: 17 or 17.5%). Of these, 7 (2016: 7) were old universities and 9 (2016: 10) were new universities. In most 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 74 respondents (2016: 80) with staff who met the criterion, the full-time equivalent (FTE) number of staff ranged from 0.15 to 22.37 (2016: 0.15 to 22.60) with a median of 1.0 (2016: 1.0) and a mean of 2.25 (2016: 2.94). 40.5% (2016: 37.5%) 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 18.75% had four or more FTE (2016: 22.78%), compared to only 5.13% of new universities (2016: 12.2%).
The median for old universities’ FTE law library staffing was 1.0 (2016: 1.5) with a mean of 3.3 (2016: 3.6). The median for new universities was 1.0 (2016: 1.0) and the mean was 1.5 (2016: 2.52). The other institutions were varied in their staffing levels, from 0.5 to 1 FTE (2016: 0.5 to 1).
In summary the staffing figures therefore portray a worse picture for old and new universities than last year. The overall mean number of staff decreased from 2.94 FTE in 2016 to 2.25 FTE in 2017, the mean number of staff for old universities decreased from 3.6 FTE to 3.3 FTE, and the mean number of staff in new universities decreased from 2.52 FTE to 1.5 FTE.
Respondents were asked for the FTE number of staff in professional, clerical and other posts.
14.1 Professional posts
Of the 74 institutions which had staff concerned with the care and servicing of the law collections as their sole or principal function, only 2 (1 old university and 1 “other” institution) did not have a professional post (2016: 2). Overall, then, of the 74 responding law libraries with staff who met the definition, 97.3% had a designated professional who could dedicate a significant proportion of their time to the needs of the law service (2016: 97.5%). The number of professional FTE posts ranged from 0.1 to 11.6 and 42% of institutions (2016: 41.25%) with any professional posts had exactly 1.0 FTE.
In old universities, 11 of the 32 respondents had exactly 1.0 professional FTE, with 12 institutions with less than 1.0 professional FTE; 9 had more than 1.0 professional FTE and the maximum was 7.4 professional FTE posts (7.4 in 2016). The mean for old universities was 1.44 professional FTEs (2016: 1.46 FTEs). The results show a very slight decrease in the average level of professional staffing in old universities.
In new universities, 19 of the 39 respondents had exactly 1.0 FTE professional post, with 14 institutions with less than 1.0 FTE; 6 had more than 1.0 FTE and the maximum was 11.6 FTE professional posts. The mean for new universities was 1.2 (2016: 1.33 FTE). These results also show a slight decrease in the average level of professional staffing in new universities. In the 3 “other” institutions, one had 0 FTE, one had 0.5 FTE and one had 1.0 FTE.
14.2 Clerical posts
Turning to clerical posts, 25 institutions out of 74 respondents had clerical staff who met the definition given in section 14. Of the 49 who had library staff but no clerical staff, 17 were old universities, 30 were new universities and 2 were “other” institutions.
For the 25 institutions that did have clerical staffing, numbers ranged from 0.25 to 14.85 (2016: 0.5 to 14.85), with median of 1.0 (2016: 1.43) and a mean of 2.94 (2016: 3.82).
47 percent of old universities reported clerical staff for law as opposed to 23% of new universities (2016: 56%, 27%).
As found in past years, old universities typically had larger numbers of clerical staff. Five of the 15 old universities with clerical staff had four or more such staff and the mean was 3.89 (2016: 3.67), whereas of the 9 new universities with clerical staff only 1 (2016: 4) had four or more such staff.
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 8 (2016: 15) institutions with more than 2 FTE clerical staff, 6 or 75% had a law library located separately from other collections (2016: 7 or 47%). Of these 6 institutions, 6 (100%) 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.
14.3 Staff employed in other posts
Six institutions (2016: 7) noted law library staff, other than clerical or professional staff, who met the criterion noted in section 14 above. Of these, 4 were old universities and 2 were new universities. FTE numbers of such staff ranged from 0.5 to 2.0 (2016: 0.5 to 3.0). Their duties were specified by three of the six respondents and included “Assistant Faculty Librarian”; “IT Technician” and “Weekend auxillieres”.
14.4 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.
74 respondents or 82% (2016: 79 or 81%) of respondents had at least one member of staff who had a LIS qualification, although for 25 institutions this was less than one full-time member of staff (2016: 20).
31 (2016: 37) institutions had exactly one FTE member of staff with a LIS qualification and 6 (2016: 9) had 3 or more FTE staff with such a qualification. Importantly it is still true to say that there was no unqualified staff in professional posts. However, this year two institutions with no professional posts had professionally qualified members of library staff.
16 of the 74 respondents representing 22% of institutions (2016: 24%) had staff with an academic or professional qualification in law. 10 (2016: 12) had at least one member of staff so qualified, and 7 (2016: 13) 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 14 above, in old universities 28% (2016: 36%) of law libraries had law qualified staff, compared to new universities where only 18% (2016: 15%) had law qualified staff. None (2016: 0) of the “other” institutions had such staff. Overall, 56% of the libraries with law qualified staff were in old universities.
15. 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. Eighty eight of the 90 respondents (2015: 88) respondents completed this part of the questionnaire this year, and all of them confirmed that they provided some form of legal research skills training.
15.1 Who provides the instruction?
In 94% (2015: 94%) of the 88 responding institutions, law library staff were involved in providing legal research skills training. Only in 2 universities were library staff not involved.
Law School lecturing staff were involved in the training in 75% (2015: 66%) of institutions. Other staff, including other professional library staff and IT training officers in the law school, were involved in 7% (2015: 11%) of institutions. Several of the database providers offer free training to staff and students and so the survey asked whether such external trainers were used for legal research skills instruction. 50% (2015: 58%) of respondents’ institutions took advantage of such free training. In addition, Lexis or Westlaw student associates contributed to training in 45.5% (2015: 43%) of institutions.
In 9% (2015: 14%) of institutions, the law library staff alone provided legal research skills instruction. In a further 12.5% (2015: 19%) 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 18% of old universities, 26% of new universities and 0% of other institutions (2015: 29%, 36% and 0%).
In 72% of institutions (61% in 2015), provision was a joint responsibility between the law library and law school lecturing staff. However, in 52% (2015: 61%) of institutions legal research skills instruction also involved other staff or external trainers.
These figures suggest that the law library and law school increasingly 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 decreased by 8% to 50%, whilst the use of student associates has increased to 45.5%. The number of law library staff having sole responsibility for legal research skills training has decreased markedly in old and 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 and with law school lecturing staff becoming more important.
15.2 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 the same as in 2015 at 92% and there was also an increase to 94% in the proportion involved in postgraduate vocational courses. Involvement with postgraduate taught courses decreased slightly to 89% and involvement with training research postgraduates decreased to 67%.
15.3 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 disappointing news is that percentage levels of integration of the library's contribution have decreased for all types of courses on the 2015 levels.
15.4 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 73 respondents (2015: 76) who noted contact hours for undergraduates, hours ranged from 1 to 46 (2015: 1 to 30), with a mean of 6.2 hours (2015: 5.2) and a median of 4.5 hours (2015: 4). Undergraduates in 36% (2015: 51%) of respondents’ institutions received between 2 and 4 hours instruction from the law library staff.
26 respondents (2015: 29) noted contact hours with library staff for students on the LPC, BVC, CPE, Institute of Legal Executives and other postgraduate professional courses. Hours ranged from 1 to 22 (2015: 1 to 8.5), with a mean of 3.9 hours (2015: 2.9) and a median of 2 hours (2015: 2).
60 institutions (2015: 63) gave contact hours for other taught postgraduate students. These ranged from 1 hour to 96 hours (2015: 0.75 to 12), with a mean of 4.6 hours (2015: 3.3) and a median of 2 hours (2015: 2.5).
Finally, 37 respondents, comprising 25 old universities and 12 new universities (2015: 43 respondents with 28 old universities and 15 new) gave research postgraduates between 0.5 hours and 25 hours of legal research skills instruction (2015: 0.5 to 25), with a mean of 2.7 hours (2015: 3.3) and a median of 2 hours (2015: 2).
In general, the average amount of teaching received by an undergraduate, a postgraduate professional and a taught postgraduate has increased. However, a decrease in the average amount is noted for research postgraduates.
15.5 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. 79 institutions responded (2015: 79), with figures ranging from 1 hours to 425 hours (2015: 3 to 401.5). 20 respondents (2015: 12) spent under 10 hours teaching, 6 of whom were old universities and 12 new and 2 other institutions (2015: 7 old, 3 new, 2 other). At the other end of the scale, 7 respondents (2015: 10) of whom 4 were old universities and 3 new universities spent over 100 hours on instruction (2015: 5 old, 5 new, 0 other). The overall mean was 41 hours (2015: 50). The mean for old universities was 44 hours and new universities was 41 hours, and other institutions returned a mean of 9 hours (2015: old 54.5 hours, new 47.5 hours, other institutions 6 hours). The overall median was 20.5 hours (2015: 25).
On average most librarians in both old and new universities appear to be spending slightly fewer hours teaching than previously, and more of this teaching was being undertaken in old universities than in new universities.
15.6 Method of delivery
Respondents were asked to indicate, for the instruction featured in section 15.2 above, which methods of delivery were used.
Across all categories of student, large group lecture sessions were the most popular method of delivery, used by 87% of all respondents (2015: 86%). They were used most frequently for undergraduate courses, where 77% of respondents used lectures, followed by postgraduate professional courses, where 70% of respondents used this method. Lectures were used by 66% of respondents for their other taught course postgraduate teaching and by 27% of respondents for research postgraduates.
Overall, IT or database workshops were the next most popular method of delivery used by 85% of all respondents (2015: 89%). They were most often used for undergraduate level teaching, where 67% of respondents used this method, followed by postgraduate taught courses with 64% of respondents, postgraduate professional courses with 56.5% of respondents using this delivery method, and research students at 30% of respondents.
One-to-one reference advice sessions were used by 78% of all respondents (2015: 77%). They were most often used for teaching undergraduates, where 69% of respondents used this method, followed by postgraduate taught courses with 58% of respondents, research postgraduate teaching with 54% of respondents, and postgraduate professional courses with 52% of respondents using this delivery method.
Small group tutorial / seminar sessions based in a seminar room, rather than an IT room, were used by librarians in 41% of institutions (2015: 40%). They were used most frequently for postgraduate professionals by 26% of respondents, then for undergraduates by 25% of respondents and taught course postgraduates by 24% of respondents. They were least often used for research postgraduate training, where the method was used in 13% of cases.
Locally produced online tutorials were used by 36% of responding institutions for legal research skills instruction (2015: 32%). Online tutorials were used across all courses but especially with postgraduate professional courses, where 35% of respondents used this method of delivery and undergraduate courses, with 30% of respondents. 24 percent of respondents used them with postgraduate taught courses and 14% used them on research postgraduate courses.
Student workbooks, which enable hands-on self-paced learning, were still used by just 13% of respondents (2015: 13%). They were used by 7 institutions for undergraduate courses and by 3 institutions for postgraduate taught courses, by 2 institutions for postgraduate professional courses and by 1 institution with research postgraduates.
Nine percent of respondents noted other methods. These included practical training in using print resources.
15.7 Information literacy
We asked two survey questions specifically referring to the Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework) and the SCONUL Standards and the integration of these principles within the undergraduate law curriculum.
86 institutions responded (2015: 89), of which 29 or 34% said they did integrate these information literacy principles within the undergraduate law curriculum (2015: 33 or 37%). Of those institutions that did, 22 or 76% (2015: 26 or 79%) embedded the principles within a law course whilst 7 or 24% (2015: 7 or 21%) embedded them within a generic information literacy programme.
These questions were first posed in 2005. The results for 2017 show an overall decrease (compared with 2015) in the number of institutions integrating information literacy principles within the law undergraduate programme.
16. OVERSEAS LINKS
At the request of BIALL, questions were asked for the fifth 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 89 institutions which responded 31 or 35% (2015: 22 or 25%) did provide law courses overseas, either by means of a partnership with an overseas institution or by franchise. They were 9 old universities (2015: 6) and 22 new universities (2015: 16). The courses offered by respondents were located in 33 countries (2015: 23): The following countries were mentioned: Greece (4 respondents each); China, France, Ghana, Hong Kong, Mauritius, Netherlands and UAE (2 respondents each); Africa (sic), Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Sweden, Uzbekistan and Vietnam (all one each).
None of the institutions aimed their courses at pre-degree level (2015: 0). 22 focused on undergraduate courses (2015: 14) and 14 on postgraduate level courses (2015: 13) and 0 specifically at PhD level courses (2015: 1).
The most frequent type of support provided by library and information staff was providing email support for overseas registered students in finding resources (9 respondents. 2015: 11), providing access to new e-resources (9 respondents. 2015: 9), setting up a subscription to new e-materials (7 respondents. 2015: 4), providing technical assistance to overseas library and information staff (6 respondents. 2015: 8), purchasing and shipping out new print materials (4 respondents. 2015: 5) and creating lists of materials to be purchased by the overseas institution (3 respondents. 2015: 5).
Other forms of support included Skype 1-2-1 training on request, pre-recorded and live online tutorials, cataloguing and processing of library materials, onsite inductions, access to networked resources, front-line library staff in situ and online help pages. 13 institutions provided no support at all (2015: 6).
17. OTHER ACTIVITIES
For the third time the survey questionnaire asked respondents about the contribution of their library staff to other law library activities such as creating web subject and research guides; providing content for law library web pages, social networking sites and web portals or gateways; and writing published articles. 89 respondents answered the questions in this final section (2015: 89).
17.1 Contribution to creating web subject and research guides
In 80 libraries or 90% of respondents, law library staff created web subject and research guides. Of these 80 libraries, 34 were old universities, 43 were new universities and 3 were other institutions.
17.2 Provide content for law library web pages
In 64 libraries or 72% of respondents, law library staff provided content for their law library web pages. Of these 64 libraries, 32 were old universities, 32 were new universities and 0 were an “other” institution.
17.3 Provide content for library social networking sites
In 53 libraries or 60% of respondents, law library staff provided content for the library social networking sites. Of these 53 libraries, 25 were old universities, 26 were new universities and 2 were “other” institutions.
17.4 Provide content for web portals or gateways
In 45 libraries or 51% of respondents, law library staff provided content for web portals or gateways. Of these 45 libraries, 18 were old universities, 24 were new universities and 3 were “other” institutions.
17.5 Write published articles
In 23 libraries or 25% of respondents, law library staff wrote published articles. Of these 23 libraries, 11 were old universities, 12 were new universities and 0 were an “other” institution.
In summary, therefore, the most popular other activities in both old and new universities continued to be, firstly, creating web subject and research guides, followed by providing content for law library web pages, providing content for social networking sites and providing content for web portals or gateways. Writing published articles continues to be the least popular other activity.
Acknowledgement
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 continues to contribute significantly to the administration of the survey and has helped me by calculating many of the statistics for the report.
APPENDIX
List of the 90 academic law libraries in the UK and Ireland that returned a completed 2016/2017 survey questionnaire
Aberdeen University
Abertay University
Aberystwyth University
Aston University
Bangor University
Bedfordshire University
Birkbeck, University of London
Birmingham City University
Birmingham University
Bodleian Law Library (University of Oxford)
Bolton University
Bournemouth University
Bradford College
Bradford University
Brighton University
Brunel University London
Buckingham University
Canterbury Christ Church University
Cardiff University
Central Lancashire University
Chester University
City, University of London
Coventry University
Cumbria University
Derby University
Dublin Business School
Dundee University
Durham University
Edinburgh Napier University
Essex University
Exeter University
Glasgow Caledonian University
Gloucestershire University
Greenwich University
Heart of Worcestershire College
Hertfordshire University
Huddersfield University
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS)
Keele University
Kingston University
Lancaster University
Leeds Beckett University
Leeds University
Leicester University
Lincoln University
Liverpool Hope University
Liverpool John Moores University
Liverpool University
London Metropolitan University
London South Bank University
Manchester Metropolitan University
Newcastle University
Northampton University
Northumbria University
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham University
Oxford Brookes University
Plymouth University
Portsmouth University
Queen Mary University of London (QMUL)
Queen's University Belfast
Robert Gordon University
Salford University
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
Sheffield Hallam University
Sheffield University
South Wales University
Southampton Solent University
Southampton University
Squire Law Library (University of Cambridge)
St Mary's University, Twickenham
Staffordshire University
Stirling University
Surrey University
Sussex University
Swansea University
Teesside University
Ulster University
University College Cork (UCC)
University College Dublin (UCD)
University College London (UCL)
University of East Anglia (UEA)
University of East London (UEL)
University of Law
University of the West of England (UWE)
Warwick University
Westminster University
Winchester University
Wolverhampton University
York University
