SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

• • The response rate was 82.88%; very good, and near the record of 85.4% (section 3);

• • There was an increase again in the number of new universities enrolling PhD and MPhil students (section 5);

• • 12% 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 ratio of students to seats continued to worsen to its least favourable since statistics were first collected in the 1990s, with a median of 5.74 students to every seat in study areas by the law collection and a mean of 8.42 students per seat. Some respondents noted the difficulty of accurately identifying such seating where the law collection is just one of many collections or activity areas on a particular floor of the library building (section 7);

• • The ratio of students to PC workstations located adjacent to the law collections and in the law school has improved, although some respondents noted difficulties when trying to identify accurately the number of PC workstations earmarked specifically for the use of law students (section 8);

• • WiFi access was almost universally available within libraries in general, but less frequently available in the law collection itself (section 8);

• • 41% of respondents reported an increase in the number of visits to the law library; 47% said numbers were constant and 12% reported a fall (section 9);

• • Many more libraries were open longer during term-time weekdays than previously. There was a dramatic increase in the number of libraries opening for more than 100 hours per week. Both term-time weekend and vacation opening hours have continued to increase (section 10);

• • Staffed issue services were available for a much shorter time period, on average, than previously, whilst 93% of libraries provided self-issue (section 10);

• • There was an increase in the average number of hours during term-time when a reader enquiry service for law was provided by professionally qualified staff (section 10);

• • 79% of libraries serving distance learning students provided three basic services: a link to the catalogue, a link to full-text databases and a link to full-text materials scanned into the VLE. This was a considerable improvement on the 64% in 2008 (section 11);

• • The three most popular law databases in terms of number of subscriptions continued to be Westlaw UK, Lexis^®Library and HeinOnline. But there was still fluidity in the range of subscriptions held, for 7% of respondents were considering cancelling a subscription to an electronic source before the end of July 2013 whilst 11% were considering a new subscription before the same date (section 12);

• • JSTOR was still the most widely used general database in law libraries (section 13);

• • As a result of subscribing to law e-journal databases 51%, of those with access had cancelled a print subscription to a law journal (section 14);

• • Just less than half of respondents (48%) said they had cancelled subscriptions to the print version of law material during the current year, where the same resource was available electronically (section 14);

• • Law journals were most frequently cut, followed by law reports and practitioner encyclopaedias. Respondents said that the cuts were made on the basis of the availability of an electronic alternative and a desire to reappraise the worth of titles to the current aims of law teaching and research in the institution (section 14);

• • Mean expenditure increased by 7% across all respondents on the level in 2011. Old universities reported a 6.7% increase in mean expenditure on 2011, whilst new universities reported a substantial 30% increase in mean expenditure on 2011 (section 15.1);

• • Mean expenditure on law materials per student in old universities was £239 (up 9% on 2011) whereas in new universities it was £224 (a 5% increase on 2011). The pattern in this area is therefore of a widening gap between sectors (section 15.1).

• • The proportion of total law material expenditure on monographs remained steady at 21%, serials were down to its lowest ever at 49% and databases up again at 30% (section 15);

• • Separate results on overall expenditure on law library materials in institutions not providing vocational or professional award courses are provided (section 15.6);

• • The highest proportion of income to fund the acquisition of law materials continued to come from general library funds (section 16);

• • Over 58% of all law schools made no contribution to funding the acquisition of law materials, a higher percentage than in past years. 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 16% (section 16);

• • A slightly higher percentage 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 17);

• • Overall average staffing numbers slightly declined in old universities, but increased in new universities (section 17);

• • 92% of respondents had at least one member of law library staff who had a LIS qualification, although for 18 institutions this was less than one full-time member of staff (section 17.4);

• • As found in previous surveys, library staff with law qualifications were much more common in old universities (section 17.4);

• • 87% of respondents were aware of the revised SLS Statement of Standards (2009 version) and as many as 60% had used the Statement in discussions on funding and administration (section 18);

• • In 2006 a majority of respondents considered that only a marginal move to electronic provision of legal materials would occur in the next five years. In 2012 a majority of 65% of respondents considered a significant move towards electronic provision likely in the next five years (section 19.1);

• • 48% of respondents felt that over the next five years the proportion spent in their library on the purchase of law monographs as compared with law serials would remain constant (section 19.2);

• • 74% of respondents considered that over the next five years the proportion spent on purchasing legal materials relating to the law of Great Britain and European Union as compared with foreign and international law would remain constant (section 19.3).

3 RESPONSE RATES

This year 92 forms were returned representing a response rate of 82.88%, a slight decrease on last year's 84.82%, but still close to the record of 85.4%, set in 2003/2004. I am grateful to all those law librarians who took the time to respond. I am not usually made aware of the reasons for non-returns, but this year I was told that two libraries were recruiting new law librarians in early 2013 and this explained why they did not return a completed questionnaire. On our part we try to be very flexible and have permitted some respondents to take up to ten weeks to send in a promised reply.

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.

To help detect patterns in law library provision, the data has been analysed, as in previous years, by type of institution:

• • “old” universities incorporated before 1992

• • “new” universities incorporated in or after 1992

• • institutes of higher education and other types of institution

Forty nine old universities responded (48 last year), as did 41 new universities (43 last year) and 2 other institutions (4 last year). The response profile has changed slightly, with one more result for old universities and a two less 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.

All percentages from this point onwards have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

5 STUDENT NUMBERS

A representation of the number of law students served by the libraries helps in understanding the framework in which provision is made and can assist librarians in comparing their provision with institutions of similar sizes.

Respondents were asked to indicate the total number of taught course students (bodies, not FTEs) in the Law School enrolled on exempting undergraduate law degrees or professional or academic postgraduate courses in law. Ninety one out of the total of 92 respondents gave figures for student numbers, ranging from 66 to 7,046 (71 to 7,553 in 2011). The median number of law students was 712 (700 in 2011). The mean number however was 827 (843 in 2011).

Respondents in old universities reported student numbers between 66 and 2,038 (71 to 2,016 last year), with a mean of 825 (826 last year) and a median of 855 (800 last year). In new universities, the range was 75 to 7,046 (75 to 2,596 last year), with a mean of 860 (745 last year) and a median of 540 (583 last year). Among the two other institutions, the range was 130 to 290 (145 to 7,553 in 2011). The mean was 210 (2,105 in 2011) and the median was 210 (361 in 2011). The large decrease in the mean can be accounted for by the fact that one of the largest law schools switched categories and became a new university this year.

Some movements are evident in the number of students attending responding institutions in 2011/2012 as compared with the previous year. The mean amongst old universities is slightly lower whilst the same measure for new universities is much higher. This could be due to the slightly changed survey response profile.

Eighty eight or 96% of respondents (94 or 99% in 2011) offered an exempting undergraduate law degree. Thirty or 33% of respondents (33 or 35% in 2011) hosted the Legal Practice Course (LPC), Bar Vocational Course (BVC) or Diploma in Legal Practice (Scotland). This represents 25% of old university respondents, 44% of new universities and 0% of other institutions.

Twenty eight or 30% (32 or 34% in 2011) of respondents provided courses leading to other law professional awards, such as the Common Professional Examination or Institute of Legal Executives qualification. Twelve percent of old universities, 51% of new universities and 50% of other institutions ran such courses. The final category was for other taught courses, such as LLM, which led to a postgraduate award in law. Eighty five or 92% (84 or 88% in 2011) of institutions ran these postgraduate courses, including 98% of old and 88% of new universities and 50% other institutions. The movements in the percentages of respondents offering particular courses this year, as compared with last year, are relatively small.

Respondents also indicated whether the law school enrolled students onto research courses, such as those leading to PhD and MPhil. Seventy one or 77% (74 or 78% in 2011) of institutions indicated that they did. Ninety four percent of old universities, 61% of new universities and 0% of other institutions had such students. Research students were not included in the count of law students detailed above. Whilst the percentage for old universities has fallen back from the 100% in 2011, the trend is slightly up for the new universities (60% in 2011).

This year we again asked about the number of students enrolled on distance learning courses for law. The question was last posed in 2010. Twenty eight institutions or 30% (2010: 24 or 27%; 2008: 22 or 25%: 2006: 25 or 28%) offered this mode of study. Student numbers ranged from 2 to 624 (2010: 6 to 1,500; 2008: 12 to 1,324; 2006: 3 to 733). The median number of students was 48 (2010: 77; 2008: 81: 2006: 70) and the mean 119 (2010: 48; 2008: 51; 2006: 122). Fourteen or 29% of old universities (2010: 29%) had students enrolled on distance learning courses; the number of students ranged from 12 to 473, with a median of 47 students. Fourteen or 34% of new universities (2010: 24%) had distance learning students, with numbers ranging from 2 to 624, and a median of 39. Although, in general, relatively small numbers of students are enrolled on distance courses, libraries provide special support arrangements which are investigated in section 11, below.

6 LOCATION OF THE LAW LIBRARY

Respondents were asked to indicate, from a list, which most closely matched the circumstances in their institution.

Graph 1: Location of the law library.

As the above pie chart demonstrates, across all respondents:

• • 34% had a single law library in a location separated from other subject collections (30% in 2011). Of these, there were 21 (2011: 20) old universities, 9 (2011: 7) new and 1 (2011: 2) other institution.

• • 34% had a law collection not so separated but shelved so as to form a single identifiable unit (34% in 2011). These included 17 (2011: 16) old universities, 13 (2011: 15) new and 1 (2011: 1) other institution.

• • 20% had several law collections each in a different location (20% in 2011). These included 7 (2011: 7) old, 12 (2011: 11) new universities and 0 (2011: 1) other institutions.

• • 12% had a law collection dispersed wholly or partly among other subject collections (16% in 2011). Of these, 4 (2011: 5) were old universities, 7 (2011: 10) were new universities and 0 (2011: 0) other institutions.

Forty three percent (2011: 41%) of old universities responding had a single and separate law library, while 22% (2011: 16%) of new universities and 50% (2011: 50%) of other institutions had a single and separate law library.

Thirty five percent (2011: 33%) of old universities described their law collection as being shelved so as to form a single identifiable unit but not separate from other collections. Thirty two percent (2011: 35%) of new universities described their law collection in a similar way, and 50% (2011: 25%) of other responding institutions.

Fourteen percent (2011: 15%) of old universities had several law collections, each in a different location, but 29% (2011: 26%) of new universities and no other institutions (0%) reported several collections (2011: 1, 25%).

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 BVC, in addition to a main law collection. Other respondents mentioned other reasons for separate locations: separate law reference collection and research collection and teaching collection separately housed.

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 12% of institutions reporting dispersed collections. Eight percent of old universities, 17% of new universities and 0% of other institutions had law collections wholly or partly dispersed among other subject collections. Last year the figure was 16% overall: in detail, in 2011, 10% of old, 23% of new and 0% of other institutions had dispersed collections.

Although the percentage trend of dispersed collections is down on 2012 which is encouraging, one must remember that the general response profile for different types of institution has altered a little between last year's and this year's surveys, so the actual institutions responding are different and are the most likely reason for most of the downward changes noted.

7 PROVISION OF SEATING

Respondents were asked to indicate the number of seats in study areas by the law collection/s, excluding workstation places. This question has been asked in alternate years so the data for 2012 can be compared with that for 2010 and 2008.

Eighty four institutions provided figures. The figures ranged from 6 to 1,380 with a mean of 207 (2010: 204; 2008: 214) and a median of 123 (2010: 120; 2008: 130). The results must be viewed with some caution. As has been noted in section 6 above, there is a significant number of institutions where the law collection is not separate from other subjects, and respondents have taken different views on how to count the amount of seating which was ‘by the law collection’ as required by the survey question.

A more useful measure is the ratio of students to seats. Eighty three of the 84 responding institutions were able to provide data for both variables. The ratio ranged from 0.26 to 81.0 Students per seat, with a median of 5.74 (2010: 5.70; 2008: 5.41) and a mean of 8.42 students per seat (2010: 8.20; 2008: 8.10). The data were analysed according to the type of institution. The 45 old universities had a ratio of between 0.33 and 36.10 (2010: 0.60 and 15.90; 2008: 0.45 and 30.00) with a median of 5.39 (2010: 4.83; 2008: 4.81). Thirty six new universities had a ratio of between 0.26 and 80.89 (2010: 0.60 and 56.60; 2008: 0.59 and 87.38) with a median of 6.64 (2010: 7.70; 2008: 6.28). The two other institutions had a ratio of between 1.04 and 11.60 (2010: 1.70 and 13.40; 2008: 3.66 and 13.12), with a median of 6.32 (2010: 4.69; 2008: 8.51).

Fifty eight percent (2010: 60%; 2008: 55%) of old universities were at or below the overall median ratio of 5.74%, as compared with 42% (2010: 38%; 2008: 45%) of new universities and 50% (2010: 60%; 2008: 50%) of other institutions.

A further analysis highlights the differences between the various categories of respondent: 13% of old universities were in the quartile of respondents with the least favourable student to seat ratios, as compared with 39% of new universities and 50% of other institutions (2010: 12%, 38%, 40%; 2008: 14%, 33%, 50%). The percentage of old universities appearing in the quartile with the least favourable student seat ratios, is 1% higher than in 2010, while the percentage of new universities with the least favourable student seat ratios has continued to rise since 2008.

The median ratio of students to seats in a selection of past surveys has been 1994: 3.5:1, 2004: 5.3:1, 2006: 5.6:1, 2008: 5.4:1 and 2010: 5.7:1). This year's ratio of 5.74:1 is the least favourable ever reported. Some caution should be expressed in using the student : seat ratio, for many librarians noted the difficulty of identifying the number of ‘seats by the law collection’, where the trend in design is towards seating areas provided according to different study environments (silent, quiet, group activity) rather than made available to serve a particular subject.

The ratio may be compared with the former University Grants Committee ratio for law libraries of 2:1. This ratio received indirect endorsement in the Follett Report of 1993. Further, the comments to SLS Standard 3.2 states that ‘a ratio of students per seat exceeding 5:1 should be regarded as high and in need of early reduction, or of compensation through extended opening hours’. The survey results indicate that study space is under continuing pressure from student numbers in all sectors but, as discussed in section 10 below, there continues to be a considerable increase in the opening hours of responding libraries.

8 WORKSTATIONS

The survey asked respondents to indicate the number of PC or Mac workstations which can access electronic law materials, and are available for law student use:

• • adjacent to, or in the same building as, the law collection;

• • in the building where the law school is housed.

In response to the first part of the question, a number of respondents noted that although the workstations counted as ‘in the same building as the law collections’ they were shared with non-law students. It was difficult to determine accurately the numbers available for law student use. Further, some respondents not only included fixed workstations but noted the number of laptops available for student use. The questions on workstation provision were devised originally in the mid-1990s, when the SLS was concerned about the level of investment in IT hardware. But since then developments in library facilities and computer technology have made accurate tracking of the relative ease of law student access to IT less reliable.

Eight-eight respondents (96%) provided figures for the numbers of workstations near the law collections. The numbers ranged from 10 to 1,443 – 50% (the median) had at least 203 (2010: 130; 2008: 126; 2006: 96) and the mean was 239 (2010: 218; 2008: 188; 2006: 166). The very positive trend of providing additional workstations to complement traditional study places seems to have accelerated.

Eighty four respondents (91%) provided figures for the number of workstations in the law school. Of these, 28 law schools did not have any workstations for student use (2010: 20; 2008: 19). For those who did, the range was from 0 to 600, with a mean of 58 (2010: 104; 2008: 75) and a median of 21 (2010: 50; 2009: 29). Whilst the range of numbers remains reasonably constant, the mean and median see-saw; this may be due to changes in the responses profile.

The ratio of law students to workstations gives a more effective picture of the levels of provision. The figures for workstations adjacent to the law collections and in the law school were combined for this measure. 87 (2010: 86) institutions were able to provide data for both parts of the ratio.

The ratio ranged from 0.14 to 50 students per workstation (2010: 0.15 to 33.33; 2008: 0.36 to 250), with a median of 2.34 (2010: 3.80; 2008: 3.44) and a mean of 5.52 (2010: 6.17; 2008: 9.10). Thirty nine institutions had a ratio of law students to workstations of less than 2 (2010: 28; 2008: 23). When interpreting these figures the comments at the beginning of this section should be noted: the difficulty of identifying accurately the numbers of PCs “in the same building as the law collections”, where they were shared with non-law students.

As in the past surveys on this topic, the results for the average law student to workstation ratio were dissimilar in the old and new university sectors.

In the 46 old universities, the mean ratio was 7.40 and the median was 3.19 (2010: 7.74 and 5.16; 2008: 13.92 and 5.06). For the 39 new universities, the mean was 3.52 and the median was 1.51 (2010: 4.70 and 1.87: 2008: 4.59 and 2.39). The figures for the 2 other institutions were a mean of 1.65 and a median of 1.65 (2010: 3.61 and 3.00; 2008: 3.64 and 3.19).

For the second time a question was included on the provision of WiFi access to law databases in different locations across the institution. All 92 respondents answered. Seventy (76%) provided access adjacent to the law collection (2010: 65%); 91 (99%) provided access within the university or college library in part or whole (2010: 100%); 81 (88%) in the law school building (2010: 83%); 76 (83%) in student halls (2010: 73%) and 82 (89%) in other parts of the institution to which students have access (2010: 91%). It is notable again that access is almost universal within the library in general, but less frequently available in the law collection in particular.

9 LIBRARY USE

This year we continued to monitor trends in the number of visits to the law library, last measured in 2010. The aim was to determine whether increased access to law databases from outside the university or college campus had affected the number of visits to the library. The question asked respondents to compare the number of visits to the law collections in 2011 with 2012. The question recognised that a level of judgement would be needed but asked respondents to note the basis for their comparison. Ninety institutions responded. Thirty-eight institutions or 41% (2010: 33%; 2008: 29%) saw an increase in visits, in 42 or 47% (2010: 56%; 2008: 49%) the number of visits remained constant, and in 12 or 12% (2010: 11%; 2008: 19%) the number of visits decreased.

Thirty nine (43%) respondents mentioned more than one basis for comparison. Personal observation was mentioned 66 times (2010: 55), exit gate logs 30 times (2010: 32), SCONUL statistics 21 (2010: 16), known increase in student numbers 6 (2010: 0), issue desk statistics 4 times (2010: 4), occupancy counts not attributed to SCONUL headcount 4 times (2010: 4), student feedback 3 times (2010: 0), shelving statistics 2 times (2010: 1) and enquiry desk statistics 1 (2010: 4). The continued heavy reliance on personal observation as the basis for comparison might suggest the results are subjective rather than objective. The number of institutions reporting an increase in the number of visits has risen markedly, just less than half report stable numbers and slightly more than in 2010 report a decrease in the number of visits.

10 OPENING HOURS AND SERVICES

Opening hours were last surveyed in 2010. For the 91 responding libraries (2010: 88; 2008: 89) the median number of term-time weekly opening hours was 96 (2010: 84; 2008: 81). The mean for weekly term-time hours was 105.75 (2010: 92.39; 2008: 89.87). Hours ranged from 52 to 168 (2010: 50 to 168; 2008: 32 to 168). Twelve libraries (13% of all respondents, all in England, 2 old universities and 10 new universities) stated that they provided 24 hour access throughout the term to their paper-based collections. Overall this is a slight decrease on the 13 libraries in 2010. However this is an increase on the 5 new universities in 2010 and 2 new universities in 2006. Forty three responding libraries were open for more than 100 hours per week (2010: 25; 2008: 18); they were 21 old, 22 new and no other institutions (2010: 12 old, 12 new and I other; 2008: 7 old, 10 new and 1 other). Seventy percent of institutions offered at least 89 hours (2010: 73 hours; 2008: 72.3) and 25% at least 118 hours (2010: 103; 2008: 96).

Ninety one respondents gave details of opening hours in vacation. The median for weekly opening times was 62 hours (2010: 54; 2008: 49.6) and the mean was 70.1 hours (2010: 60.8; 2008: 56.3).

The results for term-time weekday opening indicate that there has been a significant increase in the number of libraries open for longer. Although there has been a very slight decrease in the number providing 24 hour access to print collections, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of libraries opening for more than 100 hours per week. Vacation opening hours have continued to increase also.

All 92 respondents gave details of term-time weekend opening. One did not open on Saturdays (2010: 2; 2008: 1). The number of institutions opening on Sundays increased. In 2012, 93% of institutions opened as compared with 89% of institutions in 2010 and 2008. The incidence of term-time Sunday opening varied between types of institution, though the gap between old and new universities remains small and is narrowing: 94% of old universities, 98% of new universities, 0% of other institutions (2010: 89% of old universities, 95% of new universities, and 40% of other institutions; 2008: 87%, 93%, 50%).

The results for term-time weekend opening in 2011/2012 indicate continued extensions in opening hours.

Information was sought on the time at which the law library closed in a standard term-time week, Monday to Thursday. This information was first sought in the 2002 survey. Eighty eight respondents provided this information. 20 libraries, comprising 7 old universities and 13 new universities, stated they provided 24 hours access during these days (2010: 13, comprising 5 old universities and 8 new universities; 2008: 11, comprising 3 old and 8 new universities). Of the remaining 68 libraries, 13 or 15% (2010: 19 or 22%; 2008: 20 or 23%) closed at 10pm and 7 or 8% (2010: 14 or 16%; 2008: 18 or 20%) at 9pm. The earliest closing time was 7pm (2010: 7pm; 2008: 5pm) and the latest 2.30am (2010 and 2008: 2am). The median time was 10.30pm (2010 and 2008: 10pm).

Not all facilities are necessarily available throughout opening hours. To help provide an indication of key opening hours respondents were asked to indicate the number of hours during a term time week when a staffed book loan service was available for law items. Eighty seven institutions responded, although one respondent did not operate a book loan service. For the remaining 86 respondents the mean was 59.9 hours (2010: 68.5 hours; 2008: 67.6 hours). The median was 69 hours (2010 and 2008: 70 hours). The range was 0 hours to 138 hours (2010: 0 hours to 137.3 hours; 2008: 0 hours to 108 hours). Fourteen institutions (5 old and 9 new) reported that there was no staffed issue service and they were entirely reliant on self-service for issuing materials. This is considerably more than in 2010 (3 institutions, 2 old and 1 new).

This year, the survey results for the availability of a staffed book loan service show a marked decrease in the average number of hours for which this service was available to patrons and an increase in the number of institutions with no staffed issue service.

As in 2010 and 2008 we asked whether respondents provide a self-issue system for use with items from the law collection. For 2012, 93% (2010: 90%; 2008: 83%) said they did provide self-issue facilities.

89 respondents (97%) indicated the number of hours during term-time weeks that a reader enquiry service for law was provided by professionally qualified staff. Hours when professional staff could only offer a service of referral onto a law specialist were to be excluded. Only one respondent did not provide a reader enquiry service for law (2010: 7; 2008: 2). For the remainder, the mean number of hours for which an enquiry service was available was 37.4 hours (2010: 36.9 hours; 2008: 35.8 hours) and the median was 37 hours (2010 and 2008: 37 hours). The range was 0 to 82 hours (2010: 2 to 79 hours; 2008: 3 to 76 hours). 58% of respondents provided an enquiry service for between 35 and 40 hours per week (2010: 62%; 2008: 51%).

There was another increase in the average number of hours a reader enquiry service is provided but with a reduced concentration of availability within the range of 35 to 40 hours a week.

As in 2010 we asked about membership of reciprocal borrowing schemes.

Eighty nine respondents provided details. Eight-six respondents (97%) were members of SCONUL Access (2010: 79%).

Twenty eight (32%) were members of SCONUL RX (2010: 36%).

Thirty nine (44%) were members of regional schemes (2010: 36%).

Nine (10%) were members of other schemes (2010: 6%) providing specialised reciprocal borrowing or access arrangements with other institutions. The Yorkshire University Libraries Scheme, the CONARLS IRU Scheme, the University of London access arrangement and INSPIRE were mentioned.

11 DISTANCE LEARNING

At the request of the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) we again asked questions this year about special support provided by the law library for distance learning courses. As has been noted in section 5, above, only 28 or 30% of respondents (2010: 24 or 27%; 2008: 25%) offered this type of course. Five of these institutions (all old universities) had made arrangements for their distance learning students studying law to have access to a physical (not electronic) law library other than at the institution where they were registered and outside the national reciprocal borrowing schemes mentioned in section 10 above. 8 institutions (3 old universities and 5 new) provided no additional support other than reciprocal borrowing arrangements.

Twenty one institutions provided additional support to distance learners other than that already described. Fifteen or 54% (2010: 15 or 68%) provided postal delivery of photocopying (subject to copyright), 15 or 54% (2010: 15 or 68%) postal loans, 13 or 46% (2010: 15 or 68%) a phone/e-mail/fax legal research enquiry service, and 5 or 18% (2010: 7 or 32%) undertook database searches by library staff on behalf of the distance learning students. Also mentioned, by 8 respondents (2010: 5) was the provision of study packs of readings, 2 respondents mentioned a scanning service and 1 respondent mentioned online research demonstrations and videos. Seventeen respondents or 81% (2010: 18 or 82%) offered a package including more than one of the services noted.

Some further questions probed the nature of the additional services a little deeper. All 28 or 100% of institutions (2010: 100%) offering law by distance learning provided access for learners outside the campus to databases and learning materials. All 28 or 100% (2010: 96%) also used a virtual learning environment (VLE) for the delivery of law distance learning courses. All 28 of these institutions provided details of how to access law library materials (by which was meant the law and commentary on it) through the VLE. Respondents were asked to include as many means of access as applied.

Twenty eight or 100% (2010: 18 or 82%) provided a link to the library catalogue, 26 or 93% (2010: 17 or 77%) provided links to full text online subscription databases, 24 or 86% (2010: 18 or 82%) scanned full text material into the VLE. One respondent mentioned direct access to e-books via links on the web pages, one mentioned specific links to individual cases and statutes on subscription databases and one mentioned uploaded lectures and teaching materials. Twenty eight or 100% (2010: 19 or 86%) of institutions provided more than one means of access, with 22 or 79% (2010: 14 or 64%) providing all three suggested means of access on the questionnaire: link to library catalogue, link to full text databases and full text of materials scanned into the VLE. This last result continues the significant improvement from 2006, when only 43% suggested all three means of access.

12 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 2011/2012. The results below therefore show the position in February 2013.

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 than several years ago and generally similar to last year. On a negative note, only 11% of respondents (17% last year and 14% the year before) were planning new subscriptions before the end of July 2013. However on the positive side, only 7% (19% last year and 23% the year before) noted planned or recent cancellations before the financial year end.

Like last year, a small number of law databases continue to dominate the market. Westlaw UK was taken by every respondent (100%) and Lexis^®Library was taken by all bar one (99% of respondents). Last year Westlaw UK was taken by all respondents (100%) and Lexis^®Library by all bar two (98%). HeinOnline, kept the third position it first gained in 2007 with an increased percentage, being taken by 72 or 78% of respondents (last year: 74%). Lawtel UK held on to fourth place with 38 or 41% of respondents taking the database (the same percentage as last year).

Of the other databases mentioned by respondents a marked increase was recorded for JustCite, who still remained in fifth position with 37% of respondents (up from 27% of respondents last year). Jordan's Family Law Online remained in sixth position with 32%, an increased percentage of respondents on last year (17% last year) and ILP moved up one place to seventh position with 17%. i-law slipped down one place to eighth place with 14% of respondents and IFLP dropped one place to ninth place with 13%. Lawtel EU remained in joint tenth place with 12% of respondents. Also with 12% of respondents, the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law moved up to the other joint tenth place.

Looking at the returns for Westlaw UK in more detail, no respondents were planning to cancel subscriptions and two respondents reported plans to extend their coverage of subscriptions in the year to July 2013.

Six respondents (2011: 4) subscribed to Westlaw IE (Irish Law). Four were based in the Irish Republic and two in the UK, all six also subscribed to Westlaw UK.

Respondents were asked to indicate the subscriptions they took to particular parts of the Lexis^®Library product.

This year the Journals module was the most popular product, taken by 98% of respondents (2011: 93%). The International Materials module was the second most popular, taken by 85% of respondents (2011: 77%), while the UK newspapers on Lexis module was the next most popular, taken by 72% of respondents (2011: 71%). The Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents in electronic format was taken by 54% of respondents (2011: 43%) and Halsbury's Laws was taken by a marked reduction of libraries at 17% of respondents (2011: 86%).

No other Lexis^®Library product was taken by more than 10% of respondents. The next most popular was PSL at 10% of respondents (2011: 4%), followed by Employment Law at 9% (2011: 4%) and Company and Commercial at 3% (2011: 4%). The following databases were taken by 2% each: Atkins Court Forms (2011: 2%), Local Government (2011: 2%), Tax (2011: 2%), Immigration and Human Rights (2011: not recorded) and Civil Procedure (2011: 2%). A further 14 Lexis^®Library databases were mentioned by a total of just over 14% of respondents.

Two respondents intended to take out a new subscription to Lexis EU Tracker. No respondents reported that they were planning to cancel any part of their existing Lexis^®Library subscriptions.

HeinOnline retained its third position with an increased 78% share of the market (2011: 74%). This year one respondent said they were planning to subscribe to the Israel Law Review on HeinOnline, and no respondents said they were planning to cancel their subscriptions.

Lawtel UK held on to fourth place with 41% of respondents taking the database (the same percentage as last year). One respondent hoped to subscribe to Kemp on Lawtel and two respondents planned to cancel their subscriptions by July 2013 – one citing lack of use and one stating that information was duplicated on Westlaw UK.

Justcite increased its share markedly by 10% and was mentioned by 34 or 37% (2011: 27%). Jordan's Family Law Online also increased its share markedly by 15% and was mentioned by 29 or 32% (2011: 17%).

Other than the databases already discussed in detail, the following databases were mentioned by 10% or more respondents:

Databases cited by 4 or more respondents included Kluwer Arbitration (9 respondents), PLC online (8 respondents), Oxford Reports on International Law (7 respondents), Current Legal Information [CLI] (6 respondents), Casetrack (5 respondents) and Beck (4 respondents).

In total 20 respondents (or 22%) subscribed to other Justis products other than Justcite. Although not all respondents gave full details of their Justis subscriptions the following information was given: three respondents (or 3%) subscribed to the “full Justis package”; two respondents (or 2%) subscribed to Justis Session Cases, Justis Irish Reports, Justis English Reports and Justis International Law Reports; and one respondent each subscribed to Information Law Reports and the Parliament module.

Except for Lawtel EU, databases of European legal information continue to be casualties in the changing academic legal database market. Lawtel EU slightly improved and was taken by 11 respondents or 12% (2011: 11%). However two respondents planned to cancel Lawtel EU by July 2013 because of duplication of materials elsewhere and lack of use. Eurolaw continued to be subscribed to by just 1 respondent or 1% (2011: 1%). Other full text EU databases were taken by only 10 respondents, the equivalent of 11% of respondents (2011: 4%).

A total of 47 databases other than those already featured were mentioned by 3 or fewer survey respondents.

The median number of legal database subscriptions taken in responding libraries in February 2013 was 6 (February 2012: 4). The numbers of legal databases offered by institutions ranged from 2 to 43 (2010: 2 to 47).

13 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 (86%) noted other subscription databases which contribute significantly to the teaching and research work of their law school. This showed a very significant increase from the 55% recorded last year.

JSTOR was again the most widely used general database with 57 or 62% of respondents (2011: 55%). ISI Web of Science service continued to be at second position with 47 respondents (51%) mentioning this service (2011: 49 or 52%). ASSIA was the next most popular with 25 or 27% or respondents mentioning it (2011: 23%). Criminal Justice Abstracts was mentioned by 22 or 24% of respondents (2011: 22%), EBSCO Business Source was mentioned by 11 or 12% (2011: 20%), House of Commons Parliamentary Papers (HCPP) was mentioned by 8 or 9% (2011: not recorded) and EBSCO Academic was mentioned by 7 or 8% of respondents (2011: 20%). 3 or 3% of respondents each mentioned SAGE Premier, Public Information Online, Socindex, Science Direct and XpertHR.

By February 2013, 58 or 63% of respondents used a web-based combined newspaper database to access the full range of newspapers (2011: 53 or 56%). The suppliers were Nexis UK used by 35 respondents (2011: 28), Proquest with 13 respondents (2011: 5), Factiva with 8 respondents (2011: 7), Newsbank with 5 respondents (2011: 5), Infotrack with 3 respondents (2011: 2) and Gale with 2 respondents (2011: 4). UK Newspapers Online, Times Digital and News UK were each taken by one respondent a piece. No other newspaper databases were mentioned. The results for this year indicate the continued popularity for Nexis UK with increased numbers for 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.

14 E-JOURNALS AND E-BOOKS

Every other year since 2004, we have asked questions about electronic journals and books, a sector of the publishing market which has developed rapidly in the last few years. We repeated the same questions as used in 2010, to try to gauge the impact electronic materials are having on print subscriptions.

Eighty five, or 92% of respondents (2010: 82, 93%; 2008: 79, 89%; 2006: 75, 82%) said they subscribed to an electronic journal database which includes law titles, excluding Lexis^®Library, Westlaw UK, HeinOnline, e-journal gateways (e.g. SwetsWise) and special deals (e.g. NESLI). The pattern across different types of institution showed increased take-up amongst old universities on previous years. Forty seven were old universities (2010: 43; 2008: 45; 2006: 41), 37 were new universities (2010: 37; 2008 & 2006: 32) and 1 (2010: 5; 2008 & 2006: 2) were other types of institution.

However, as a result of subscribing to law e-journal databases 43, or 51%, of those with access had cancelled a print subscription to a law journal (2010: 39 or 44%; 2008: 27 or 30%; 2006: 20 or 22%). Twenty-four old universities (2010: 20; 2008: 17; 2006: 12), 19 new universities (2010: 16; 2008: 10; 2007: 7) and 0 other institutions (2010: 2; 2008: 0: 2006: 1) had replaced a law journal print subscription with electronic access.

A slight decrease in the number of institutions: 44 or 48% of respondents (2010: 45 or 51%; 2008: 39 or 44%; 2006: 33 or 36%) said they had cancelled subscriptions to the print version of law material during the current year where the same resource was available electronically. They were 23 old universities, 20 new and 1 other type of institution.

As in 2006, 2008 and 2010 we sought information about the impact electronic subscriptions were having on print subscriptions. Were institutions starting to cut specific print subs when the same material was available electronically? Which types of print publication were being cut? Were there differences in the cuts made by the different types of institution?

Thirty six institutions (2010: 41) provided details of the titles of print materials they had cancelled where the same material was available electronically. They comprised 18 old institutions, 17 new and 1 other. A further 5 respondents (2010: 6) said there were too many titles to list or they did not have the information. Of those who sent lists 7 mentioned more than 10 publications (some considerably more) and 9 had lists of between 5 and 10 titles. This evidence alone shows that cuts are biting.

Excluding instances where respondents said they were cancelling duplicate subscriptions to leave only a single subscription, a total of 177 print titles were cancelled (2010: 425; 2008: 290: 2006: 186). That number excludes a) two respondents (2010: 3) stating “all Sweet & Maxwell print journals on Westlaw UK cancelled”, b) one respondent stating “electronic-only on all Wiley & Sage journals”, c) one respondent stating electronic-only for the Australian State Reporters, d) one respondent stating electronic-only for the Common law library titles, e) one respondent stating “all Tolleys print titles available on Lexis@Library” cancelled and f) three respondents stating there were too many print title cancellations in favour of the electronic version to list. All this adds up to a substantial number of cancellations in one year, although perhaps fewer overall than was recorded in previous years leading one to speculate that the number of print cancellations in favour of an electronic alternative may have reached a plateau for the time being.

In 2012 the cancellations axe fell almost entirely on print law journals and law reports. Of the 177 specifically mentioned cancelled print titles, 118 were law journals and 24 titles were law reports (although in 2010 a record 299 law journal or law reports titles were cancelled comprising of 276 law journal and 23 law report titles). Looking only at journals, old universities mentioned 43 print titles which had been cancelled (241 in 2010), whilst new universities mentioned 75 cancellations (33 in 2010). Fewer law report titles were cancelled: 11 by old universities (2010: 17), 13 by new universities (2010: 5).

The titles cancelled included both core and specialised titles. For example core titles such as New Law Journal, Company Lawyer, All England Law Reports were cancelled. Further the jurisdictional spread of both law journal and law report titles cancelled was again wide, covering not just the UK and the EU, but also public international material, US (Federal and State), Israel, Australia, Germany and Italy. The decision to cancel appeared to be motivated not just by the availability of an electronic equivalent, but also a desire to reappraise the worth of titles to the current aims of law teaching and research in the institution.

In 2010 four subscriptions to Halsbury's Statutes were reported cancelled, whilst in 2012 there were only two cancellations. Three subscriptions to the Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedent were also recorded in 2012.

The remaining cancelled print titles were practitioner manuals such as Emmet on Title, Ryde on Rating and Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant. Print versions of litigation style manuals and Civil Court precedents were also cancelled.

In summary, this snapshot of cancellations indicates that the priority for cancellation appears to remain with law journals and law reports including though not exclusively, those available electronically. Practitioner encyclopaedias cancellations feature much less than in 2010.

We asked two questions to gain an impression of which parts of the law collection had sustained cuts and why. Of the 59 respondents who reported cuts, 19 or 32% reported the cuts falling equally on UK and foreign, comparative and international (FCIL) materials; 26 or 44% more heavily on UK materials; and 14 or 24% more heavily on FCIL materials.

Fifty one respondents gave reasons for where the cuts fell, some citing different factors. The most frequently cited (17 times) was that the cuts had to fall on UK materials because there were either, very few or no FCIL materials held. Second most frequent (14 times) was the availability of materials in electronic format, resulting in the cancellation of print subscriptions. A number of respondents commented that jurisdiction was immaterial; format was the driver, along with student preference for electronic versions. The remaining reasons related to the driver for cancellations rather than what the question was trying to ascertain: the jurisdictional nature of the cuts. Drivers mentioned by respondents were reviews of the relevance of materials to the teaching and research aims of the school (7 times) and changes to law course content (3 times).

As in 2006, 2008 and 2010 we asked about subscriptions to e-book publishers. Ninety one respondents (2010: 85) listed the e-book publishers to which they subscribed for law titles. They were 48 old universities and 41 new universities and 2 other types of institution.

Graph 3: Top 10 e-book publishers.

As the graph above shows, 76 subscribed to Dawsonera (2010: 55), 65 subscribed to My-i-library (2010: 51), 40 subscribed to Oxford Scholarship Online (2010: 30), 30 subscribed to E_library (2010: 22), 24 to NetLibrary (2010: 37), 9 to EBL (2010: 6), 6 to Cambridge e-books (2010: 5), 4 to Hart and 2 a piece to Martinus Nijhoff, Springer, EBSCO and Cavendish Publishing. A further 5 niche suppliers were taken by just one library each.

15 EXPENDITURE

Eighty seven of the 92 respondents were able to provide total expenditure figures for 2011/12. Those respondents who did not respond either could not disaggregate law expenditure from other subjects or were not prepared to provide the information.

15.1 Total Expenditure on Law Materials

Total expenditure on the acquisitions of law materials ranged from £20,160 to £1,311,000 (2011: £20,154 to £1,360,500). Mean expenditure was £172,143 (2011: £160,864), a significant 7% increase on 2011. This marked increase in expenditure in 2012 (following on from a 3% decrease in 2011) is very welcome, although to sound a note of caution the increase is probably 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: 45 out of a possible 49 responses (2011: the same number, 45)

  Range from £48,057 to £704,500; median £176,320 (increased by 19% on 2011); mean £188,790 (increased by 6.7% on 2011). 75% of old universities spent at least £107,006 (up 2% on last year). 25% spent more than £263,511 (up 20% on last year).

• New universities: 40 out of a possible 41 responses (2011: 43)

  Range £20,160 to £1,311,000; median £107,191 (up 11% on last year); mean £159,170 (up a substantial 30% on last year). 75% of new universities spent at least £75,000 (up by 34% on last year) and 25% spent more than £155,155 (down by 1.3% on last year).

• Other institutions: 2 responses (2011: 4)

  These figures are not very useful because of the tiny sample.

These welcome results seem to indicate that the financial climate is improving on 2011 across the sectors. For both old and new universities the expenditure on law materials results are uniformly positive across all key indicators.

For each law student in a typical university (looking at the median) £195 was spent on law materials. This is a 1.5% increase on the figure for 2011.

However, the rate of increase has not been evenly distributed across the higher education sector. In an old university, median spend per student was £203 (2011: £201) but for a student in a new university the median was £176 (2010: £186), a widening gap between old and new universities of 15% (2011: 9.5%). In other types of institution the median spend per student was £281 (2011: £256). As graph 4 illustrates, the gap between old and new universities fluctuates over time but widened in 2011/2012 due to a slight increase in median expenditure in old universities but a much larger decrease in the median for new universities. Per capita expenditure at other types of institution has increased enormously and risen well above old universities. However this marked statistical change is due to the very tiny sample of just 2 respondents.

Graph 4: Library materials expenditure per student.

Taking the mean, rather than the median, the pattern is also of a widening gap between sectors. Mean law materials expenditure per student in old universities was £239, up 9% from 2011 whereas in new universities it was £224, a 5% increase on 2011. In other types of institution the mean spend per student was £282 (2010: £256), indicating a steep increase, but these results have been calculated over just two respondents.

16 SOURCES OF INCOME

Eighty six (2011: 92) respondents gave details of the source of the funds from which law material expenditure was met.

The greatest proportion of acquisitions was funded from general library funds, and all except four institutions responding received at least part of their income this way. Using the mean, 82% of old universities', 92% of new universities' and 98% of other institutions' income for law library materials was from general library funds (88%, 90% and 88% last year). When the median is used the figures are 92%, 100% and 99% (2011: 94%, 100% and 100%). The decrease in the mean and median percentages for old universities indicates a fall in focus on general library funds, whilst the slight increase in the mean percentage and the no change in the median percentage for new universities indicates a slight increase or at worse no change in focus on general library funds as the source on last year.

Law schools contributed to funding the acquisition of law materials in 36 institutions (2011: 41). As has been noted in previous survey reports, a considerable number of law schools make no such contribution at all (58% this year, 57% in 2011). On the other hand, 48% (2011: 52%) of old university law schools, 38.5% (2011: 35%) of new university law schools and 0% (2011: 25%) of other institutions' schools contributed something.

Of the law schools that contributed, the amount ranged from £500 to £181,000 (2011: £2,000 to £220,066). The median contribution was £21,264, a slight increase of 2% on last year. The mean was £31,695, down 16% on last year.

For the libraries that received funds from the law school, these funds represented a mean of 21% of the total income for the purchase of law materials, with a median of 18% (25% and 19% last year). The percentage contributions by law schools based in old and new universities moved together to exactly the same mean percentage this year. Of the old university law schools who contributed anything, the mean contribution represented 21% of the funds for library materials (2011: 22%), while new university law schools also contributed 21% (2011: 29%). No ‘other’ institutions received funds from the law school (2011: 49%).

In the old universities, median law school funding for law materials was £24,245, up 24% on last year's exactly the same increase of 24%. The mean was £35,475, down by only 1% on last year. In new universities the comparative figures were a median of £18,284, down 27% on last year and a mean of £26,403, down 35% on 2011.

Over half of all law schools make no contribution to funding the acquisition of law materials, a higher percentage than in past years. There was an increase again in the proportion of new university law schools making a contribution (up up 3.5% on last year), but there was a 4% fall in the percentage number of old university law schools contributing this year.

In addition, gauged on most indicators, for old universities those law schools which did contribute gave more than in the past, while in new universities those law schools which did contribute gave much less than in the past. The pattern across the sectors indicated that old and new university law schools contributed the same proportion (21%) to the law library budget. The mean amount contributed by law schools at new universities decreased by a significant 35%, while the mean amount contributed by law schools at old universities decreased by only 1%.

Seven institutions (2011: 7) reported receiving income from other university budgets for law materials. For these 4 old universities, 2 new universities and 1 other institution, the amount of income from these sources ranged from £1,554 to £257,770 (2011: £7,750 to £62,295).

No respondents reported funding from user charges (2011: 1).

Finally, 5 institutions (2011: 8) reported receiving financial contributions towards law materials from outside bodies. The sums ranged from £6,000 to £109,705 (2011: £250 to £117,091), with a median income of £12,000 (2011: £5,505) and a mean income of £46,755 (2011: £21,208). Of these, all five were old universities.

17 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. Eight (or 9%) of the 91 responding institutions had no staff which met this criterion (2011: 6 or 6%). Of these, 4 (2011: 2) were old universities and 4 (2011: 4) 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 83 respondents (2011: 89) with staff who met the criterion, the full-time equivalent (FTE) number of staff ranged from 0.30 to 23.85 (2011: 0.30 to 23.95) with a median of 1.0 (2011: 1.0) and a mean of 2.53 (2011: 2.6). 39.8% (2011: 41%) 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 20.4% had four or more FTE (2011: 8%), reversing the trend in declining numbers over the past few years, compared to only 7.5% of new universities (2011: 3%).

The median for old universities' FTE law library staffing was 1.5 (2011: 1.5) with a mean of 3.15 (2011: 3.3). The median for new universities was 1.0 (2011: 1.0) and the mean was 1.8 (2011: 1.4). The two other institutions were varied in their staffing levels, from 1.0 to 3.0 FTE.

The staffing picture portrays a mixed picture, without the marked declines of previous years. The overall mean number of staff declined only very slightly to 2.53 from 2.6 in the previous year, and the mean number of staff for old universities only declined slightly to 3.15 from 3.3 in the previous year. On an even more positive note, the mean number of staff in new universities reversed the previous downward trend and increased to 1.8 from 1.4 in the previous year.

Respondents were asked for the FTE number of staff in professional, clerical and other posts.

18 THE SLS STATEMENT OF STANDARDS, 2009

Two questions were added in 2010 at the request of SLS to gauge how far law librarians were aware of the 2009 Society of Legal Scholars Statement of standards for university law library provision in the United Kingdom and whether they had had occasion to use it in discussions on funding and administration of the law collection in their institution. It is pleasing to record that 80 or 87% of respondents (2010: 79 or 90%) were still aware of the revised Statement and as many as 55 or 60% (2010: 48 or 55%) had used the Statement in discussions.

19 THE FUTURE

Since 2004 and every other year since, we asked for the personal views of respondents on the changes they envisage over the next five years to the provision of legal information within their library. We repeated the questions this year.