The content strategy proposal is a working document, available on the
library’s website for anyone to view and comment on (see Consultation 1 below).
There is likely to be considerable debate as interested parties fight their
corner.
In inviting users to get involved in its policy making, the BL has taken a
groundbreaking step. Lynne Brindley, chief executive of the BL, says: “We are
redefining the library and what it is collecting, seeking to get the right
balance between collection and connection, digital and print.
“We are a bit unusual among national libraries in that we are trying to pull
together a holistic overview and be more explicit about articulating what is
going to change. I am not aware of any other library undergoing a major
consultation and seeking the engagement of users.”
Caroline Pung, head of strategy and planning at the BL, and author of the
content strategy document, says: “I hope this will give people a greater level
of clarity about what we are trying to do and I hope it will lead to the BL
making the right decisions as it prioritises today’scontent for the researchers
of tomorrow.”
Pung says that the new integrated library system, launched two years ago, has
helped make possible the new approach to content. “This major IT project
successfully integrated 29 million catalogue records from 14 separate legacy
systems,” she says. “This enabled us to start to look at the collection in
different ways, and our users are able to search in one place for everything. It
also enabled us to streamline our acquisitions.”
But the BL still faces huge technical issues in how to provide easily
integrated access to persistent digital resources. It faces criticism of its
choices of what to collect and where from.
Its endeavours to remain relevant arise not just from the need to maintain
its profile as a national institution. There are more basic needs to be met as
its profits from services come under pressure from new methods of content
delivery.
Michael Jubb, director of the Research Information Network, sat on the
advisory panel that helped create the content strategy. He says the challenge in
creating the consultation document was getting the balance right between
presenting an overall strategy and giving it some substance.
“I suspect there will be quite a lot of comment about the individual
priorities being set out in the subject descriptions in the annexes,” says Jubb.
“The concern is that some respondents will miss the point.”
Clare Jenkins, director of library services at London’s Imperial College and
ex-chair of CURL (Consortium of Research Libraries in the British Isles), also
sat on the content strategy advisory panel. She believes the BLis working hard
to maintain its relevance but runs the risk of trying to be all things to all
people.
“The BL is very much looking ahead and being proactive,” she says. “They have
seriously been trying to engage a representative sample of stakeholders to
inform their thinking, as shown by the content advisory board, which was made up
of a
range of experts.
“There are so many new things they want to do because of the growth of
digital content that they are still grappling with trying to do them all and are
understandably reluctant to stop doing some other things. The consultation
process may help if there is more support for some things than others.”
Fast-moving digital world
Although the strategy covers a wide range of content, there are some notable
omissions. Newer forms of popular online content, such as blogs and wikis, are
not mentioned in a document that sets out to underpin the BL’s relevance. This
is because digital resources that are not part of the BL’s paid-for content fall
into the remit of its legal deposit work, which will remain unchanged.
As part of its legal deposit activities, the BL set up a web archiving
project focused on the UK in 2001. It hopes other national libraries will do the
same for their countries so that a federated model of archiving the web can be
created. Wikis and blogs will fall within the scope of this project rather than
being part of the content strategy because of the current legal and technical
barriers to connecting to and archiving them.
“We have to seek permission from the host site and it is even more
complicated than that because many sites then contain links to other sites,”
explains Clive Field, director of scholarship and collections at the BL. “This
permission-based route is leading to about a 33% success rate in terms of the
sites we would like to archive.
“It is also a modest start because the technology is not there to harvest and
generate metadata from that. We really need a technical breakthrough. We are
doing all we can to accelerate legislation in this area because it is a very
fragile area of the web. These freely available sites tend to disappear, yet
they hold a nucleus of modern history such as sites documenting the response to
the 7/7 bombings and the South Asian tsunami.”
A new technical solution is also likely to be needed to ensure that
researchers can navigate easily between materials held by the BL, which is a
requirement of the strategy. “A new system is likely but I couldn’t put my hand
on my heart and say exactly what is needed yet,” says Pung. “This will very much
be part of the STM (science, technology, medicine) strategy, though it is not
limited to STM. As part of the development of the STM strategy we have started
looking at identifying priorities, and linking up with primary data sets is one
of them.”
The BL has not yet set a date for the release of the STM strategy
consultation document. This will come when it has had time to assimilate the
impact of the content strategy consultation document, which is unlikely to be
within the next 12 months.
“The reason we are developing the detailed analysis of STM later is partly
practical, as it would not work to put a lot of material in one document,” says
Pung. “Also there are rapid changes in the STM landscape that are having a big
impact on our service areas. We have ongoing work on our services strategy too.”
A key focus of the strategy is the need for the BLto make more and better
partnerships. This is referred to several times but there is little flesh to
this recommendation.
Impact of e-research
Michele Shoebridge, chair of CURL, and executive director Robin Green agree
that the BL could better define partnerships and make more explicit mention of
important national and international partnerships. They also feel the issue of
going direct to academics in partnership will be an important one.
Shoebridge says: “The BL does work with librarians but its focus on reaching
out directly to end-user academics has been made explicit. They are reaching out
directly to academics; university librarians are aware of this and some are
happier with it than others.”
However, she adds:“The whole virtual research area is changing dramatically
and the days of researchers going through libraries are numbered. CURL is
researching e-research support and the impact that e-research will have on
libraries and library staff.”
Pung says: “The issue of selecting research-relevant material is a core part
of our expert role and will continue to be so. Most of our staff have close
links with academics informal networks with people in their area. We are
looking to systematise that and capture the best practice. There are new tools
available to let us communicate and interact with people in different ways.
“I would be very surprised if the librarian community felt threatened by this
and everyone seems right behind it. People understand the need for co-operative
working. We are just recognising a core part of the role librarians have always
played.”
Partnerships will become ever more important if the BL’s content is to be
balanced between collection and connection. Connecting to others’ resources,
particularly digital resources, does not carry the same sense of permanent
ownership that the BL’s guardianship role might seem to demand.
A new raft of issues faces the BL and it is realistic about its ability to
control them. “If we are linking to other people it requires us to be more
thoughtful about persistence, although we can’t guarantee it,” says Pung. “We
are looking for partners’ commitment to persistence as part of our arrangement.
There needs to be more progress with persistence but we will do our best to
ensure the persistence of content.
“We are, absolutely, behind championing the importance of digital
preservation and long-term access to content, and we are working with others to
push this issue up the agenda with government. Can we take ownership of the
whole problem? No.”
The BLhas to deal with many of the same issues that confront smaller libraries
and it is clearly looking to take a leadership role in steering through a time
of great change.
Shoebridge welcomes the strategy’s shift from collection development to
content and will be reviewing her own university library’s strategy in the light
of BL’s document.
“It is a total turnaround and really illustrates that they have made changes
and understand the need for consultation. We are entering a new era of
collaboration and use of each other’s resources. It is a powerful argument for
university libraries with their academics and VPs that collaboration between
university libraries meshes with the higher-level BL strategy. I am really
pushing collaboration and some of our stuff might go to the BL.”
Brindley says the strategy reflects a vision that the BLexists not just to
ensure the posterity of the nation’sscholarly output but to drive the economic
well-being of the nation. “During my time here we have pushed how we have
contributed to the economic competitiveness of this country. We are the nation’s
intellectual memory through our role as legal deposit, and we create economic
potential for the future as research underpins knowledge.”
Consultation 1: The content of the strategy
The
British
Library’s Content Strategy consultation document is the first part
of what will initially be a two-stage process. It follows the publication of
Redefining
the Library: The British Library’s strategy 2005-2008 . The content
strategy is intended to replace and surpass the traditional collection
development strategy.
In this first stage document, the British Library (BL) has set out the main
principles of its proposed content strategy, and has applied these to what it
will collect in the areas of arts & humanities and social sciences. In a
second, later, stage, it will consult on its science/technology/medicine (STM)
strategy.
The strategy focuses primarily on materials the BL purchases or connects
with, not its legal deposit intake. It will continue to collect UK print legal
deposit material and will collect digital legal deposit material as the 2003
Legal Deposit Libraries Act is translated into secondary legislation.
The consultation document is arranged into six sections:
• Section 1 - sets out the purpose of the content strategy review and how
stakeholders can respond to it
• Section 2 sets out the context for the strategy
• Section 3 outlines the key proposals and target audiences
• Section 4 describes the methodology that the BL will use to determine its
content (see second box)
• Section 5 summarises what will and will not change
• Section 6 covers plan to improve its partnerships
Three appendices contain the nitty gritty of the BL’s attempt to categorise
its complete collection of arts and humanities and social science holdings by
research discipline. They are described as “an invitation to dialogue”.
Methodology: Identifying the drivers behind collections
The British Library has identified five drivers of the content strategy that
will influence its methodology for determining the content to collect or connect
to. These are a mix of short-term and long-term factors. In addition to
assessing potential content under these criteria, it will also apply practical
considerations as part of its content strategy methodology.
The five drivers are:
• Global trends – the BL assesses whether material relates to high-priority
global themes
• Relevance to the UK – the content strategy questions whether material develops
the intellectual memory for the UK
• Current UK research priorities – material is included if it is an area of
research given priority in the UK as identified by public and private sector
funding sources
• Historic strengths – material may be included where it enables the BL to build
on existing strengths and expertise
• Demand – the BL will also attempt to better assess demand for material both
currently and in the future.
As well as being assessed under these five key drivers, potential content a
cquisition will also be subjected to practical considerations. The BL will look
at whether other organisations in the UK or internationally are likely to
purchase this material.
It will also check material for access restrictions, by looking at how
difficult it is for different groups of UK researchers to access this material
in the UK or elsewhere - for example, if there are membership/charging/political
or technical restrictions to material. The BL does not rule out taking an active
part in resolving any of these issues to break down barriers to access.
It will also assess life-cycle collection management implications. It must be
certain it can support the lifecycle management tasks of content such as
cataloguing, storage and preservation.
Computeractive
Back Issues
Reader comments