All you need to know about the Dearing Report

Roddie Shepherd believes that the first task of the profession in relation to the Dearing Report is to discuss it - there's certainly a lot to talk about, he says - and to do so as widely as possible. In the next few pages, he starts the ball rolling with his personal guide to this important document.

(Note: Numbers in round brackets refer to paragraphs in the main report; those in square brackets refer to recommendations.)

Collaboration and strategic partnerships
Diversity
Widening participation
Expansion
Franchising and direct funding
Quality assurance
Effective teaching and learning
Communication and Information Technology (C&IT)
Research
Copyright
Funding/student fees
Key skills
Staff, staff roles and professionalisation

Collaboration & strategic partnerships

This is a major underlying theme of the report. Its very title suggests a firm locating of HE within a strategic network of lifelong learning provision. A substantial number of its recommendations refer to collaboration and partnership in some shape or form [see e.g. 3, 34, 36, 38, 44, 68, 69, 75 and 85]. In relation to LIS, Dearing notes: 'Collaboration could be particularly fruitful in the provision and use of librariesÉWe heard of some impressive examples but more needs to be done to disseminate these' (16.48). Dearing also comments on the need to improve procurement strategies (15.25), which suggests a need to look more closely at the advantages of purchasing consortia.

This theme plays to one of our major professional strengths. Librarians are members of a professional community - collaboration and networking come naturally. When one starts to list collaborative arrangements involving academic libraries that have already been developed (and some in a period when competition was the ruling ideology!) it is hard to know where to stop.

So, for example, there is the Valnow project based at the University of Central Lancashire; the Access to Libraries in Sunderland scheme (see page 459); the University of Teesside Partnership; the Hertfordshire Libertas consortium; Sinto in Sheffield; the M25 Consortium of HE Libraries; the Consortium of Academic Libraries in Manchester; and the Birmingham Public & Academic Library Services scheme. Worth mentioning in this context is the People Flows research project being undertaken at the University of Central England. Its aims are to investigate the extent of, and reasons for, cross-use of HE, FE and public libraries, and to develop transferable models of co-operation and collaboration. The project runs until July 1998. In view of what Dearing is saying the results should be of cardinal interest throughout the profession.

It is also worth noting that the FEFC has already moved on one of the Kennedy Committee's key recommendations2 - that of funding the establishment of regional strategic partnerships in order to widen participation. Here is a message that, when we consider collaboration, we should look not only to build links across the LIS sectors, but also with other players in the education and employment sector, such as TECs, LEAs, adult education providers and bodies representing industry and commerce.

Dearing's advocacy of greater connectivity between HE and other organisations and sectors 'such as schools, community colleges, TECs and LECs, the NHS and the BL' (13.37) is helpful in terms of highlighting the need for an electronic infrastructure to support such collaboration.

Dearing, Kennedy and other forces are pushing collaboration high on the post-school sector's agenda. It is one of our professional strengths. The models and exemplars are there. Relevant research is under way. It is an area where librarians can look not just to respond, but to initiate and lead.

Diversity

The diversity of institutional mission which Dearing endorses [61] will need to be reflected in a diversity of mission, role and services amongst academic libraries. There will be no standard route to excellence. While all continuing to do essentially the same thing, we will all continue to do different things.

Widening participation

This is another major theme [2, 12] in common with the Kennedy Report. It points to a greater degree of social and cultural diversity amongst the HE learner community, and to further increases in the numbers of part-time and mature students, students with non-academic backgrounds, with work and family commitments, with special learning needs and disabilities. Provision for such students in terms of, for example, appropriate staff training, range of services, policies and procedures, and access arrangements, is likely to move centre-stage, rather than be seen as optional or add-on.

Expansion

The particular emphasis given to expansion of sub-degree higher education in further education [1, 67] has major implication for library and information services (LIS) in FE. It points to increased numbers of users, increased intensity of use and a need to expand and upgrade services, stock and facilities - including electronic and nationally networked facilities - to support HE-level courses. FE librarians should waste no opportunity to make this case to college managers, or to explore the potential of collaborative arrangements to support HE expansion. Dearing points out that 'a number of FE colleges have developed particular expertise in this level of provision' (16.39). Might indeed there now be a need for an FE Follett?

HE librarians in Northern Ireland, where Dearing recommends substantially increasing the number of HE places [90], also need to have a particular eye to the impact of expansion.

Franchising and direct funding

There currently seem to be two basic models for LIS support for franchised courses. The first is that the LIS of the franchising university seeks to extend to franchise students as full as possible a range of its services, including borrowing rights, by means of both physical and electronic access (e.g. Valnow). The argument here is one of equality of educational experience and opportunity. The second is that the LIS of the franchisee college is expected to provide the full range of resources required to support courses franchised to it. The argument here is that colleges are forced to upgrade their LIS provision to an adequate standard. The Dearing proposal [67] for the direct funding of HE sub-degree courses in FE colleges implies a major impact on FE LIS - but especially on those which have been reliant on the first of the two franchising models, or are in colleges which have had no significant HE portfolio to date. Dearing's steer on both direct funding, and the quality assurance arrangements for franchising (such as the elimination of multiple and serial franchising [23]), does suggest reduction or at least steady state on franchising.

Quality assurance

Dearing recommends [58] that funding and representative bodies develop performance indicators and benchmarks for families of institutions with similar characteristics and aspirations. Everything possible should be done by the LA, Sconul and the profession at large to ensure that LIS are included in the key indicators for each family. The report does note (3.60) that the adequacy of library provision has become a major concern; that nearly 50 per cent of students in the committee of inquiry's survey were dissatisfied with library provision; and that the level of complaint was higher in the 1992 universities and HE colleges than in the pre-1992 universities. Plainly there is a case to be made for better resourcing on quality grounds.

As mentioned, the report makes explicit recommendations [23] on quality assurance for franchised HE; however, the quality arrangements for directly funded HE in FE seem to need further clarification.

Effective teaching and learning

Dearing recommends that all HE institutions 'give high priority to developing and implementing learning and teaching strategies which focus on the promotion of students' learning' [8]. Again, no opportunity should be lost to ensure that the role and contribution of LIS are a feature of these strategies. Dearing notes, rather depressingly, that 'Library staff have told us that they have to spend more time supporting students, and that many students come from school ill-prepared for this [independent] form of learning' (8.12). We really must do better than this. Supporting students is central to the HE LIS purpose, HE LIS have a major role to play in equipping students to manage their own learning. We should be stating that in the most positive terms.

Communication and Information Technology (C&IT)

Again the recommendations here play to one of the major strengths of the profession in HE. The recommendation [9] that institutions review the changing role of staff in the light of C&IT, and that staff and students receive appropriate training and support in its use is welcome. We need to make sure that LIS staff are fully embraced in this. Equally welcome are the recommendations on the development and kite-marking of computer-based learning materials [15], and for the creation of permanent funding arrangements for Jisc services [27].

Librarians have played a major role in the development of existing institutional information strategies and so are very well placed to contribute to the overarching communication and information strategies which Dearing recommends that all HEIs put in place [41]. LIS are very likely to be involved in implementation of recommendation 46 that all HEI students have access to a networked desktop computer by 2000/01, and to a portable by 2005/06. Might LIS find themselves involved in lending hardware as well as software and its analogues? Librarians should certainly contribute to the codes of acceptable practice and behaviour for users of C&IT which are suggested (13.56).

The contribution of the eLib programme is acknowledged. It is suggested (13.32) that an output from eLib should be a detailed assessment of methods by which institutions can improve the production and distribution of electronic publications.

And how much of this will apply to FE colleges? Dearing doesn't say, but if the proposals for the expansion of HE in FE do go ahead, FE librarians will need to raise these issues with college managements. Certainly we need to watch for the FEFC response to Dearing on these types of issue. What does represent a major opportunity for LIS in FE is the recommendation [44] to the government and the funding bodies that networked connectivity is secured to all FE colleges by 1999/2000.

Research

Dearing sets out the principle that adequate infrastructure funding should be provided to support high-quality research (11.13). The report further recommends that projects funded by the research councils should meet their full indirect costs [34]; that a revolving loan fund be established to support infrastructure in top-quality research departments [34]; and that universities implement arrangements to establish the true costs of research, including overheads [52]. All of this provides opportunities for university LIS to press for full recognition of their contribution to support for research. Of particular significance here is para 11.15 which notes 'the rundown of institutional infrastructure (e.g. libraries, experimental equipment, and building maintenance)' to support research.

The establishment of an Arts & Humanities Research Council with enhanced funding [29] may well have a significant impact on university LIS, if it succeeds in promoting research activity in these areas. Dearing notes that 'wide availability of work stations that give access to libraries world wide can transform research in the arts & humanities, and in the USA has clearly done so' (11.52).

Copyright

What little Dearing does have to say on this is helpful. The report expresses the view that 'there must be provision for the free and immediate use by teachers and researchers of copyright digital information' (13.34). It goes on to recommend a review of copyright legislation, and consideration of how it might be amended to facilitate use of copyright materials in digital form [43].

Funding/student fees

Dearing has of course been pre-empted here by the government's announcement of 23 July. However, this has to be an issue that concerns us, given that freedom of access to knowledge, information and education is one of our core professional values. We also need to be concerned about access to the profession itself under the new funding regime - no-one should be deterred from taking up librarianship as a career because of lack of means. At the operational level, we can certainly expect the trend for students to become discerning, indeed demanding, customers to be accentuated when they are so obviously paying for our services. The proposal [72] to move toward 60 per cent of public funding for HE following the student may cause difficulties if LIS budgets are seen as soft targets in an environment of greater funding volatility. The need for greater funding stability across the sector as a whole is recognised in the recommendation [73] that public funding for HE should be determined on a rolling three-year basis.

Key skills

Dearing plumps for four key skill areas: communication; numeracy; use of information technology; and learning how to learn (9.17). Unfortunately he passes over the Council for Industry and Higher Education's 'information appreciation and management' (9.15). The profession must take this one up with renewed vigour. If we can't get it recognised as a discrete key skill area, then at least we should aim to get it expressly subsumed in one of the Dearing four. Learning how to learn is probably our best handle. All this is made even more important by the recommendations that the key skills be embedded in programmes rather than be treated as add-on (9.24); and that 'All institutions of HE should aim for student achievement in [the] key skills to be an outcome for all programmes'(9.25). Here is an opportunity for real integration of LIS user education into learning programmes. The issue of LIS involvement in key skills is vitally important and the argument needs to be pursued across all sectors - schools, FE, HE and beyond.3

Staff, staff roles and professionalisation

The high profile that the report gives to the issue of professionalism in HE is very welcome. The signal proposal here [14] is the establishment of an Institute for Learning & Teaching in HE (ILTHE) to accredit programmes of training for HE teachers; to commission R&D in learning and teaching practices; and to stimulate innovation. The profession must make its voice heard in this. Our roles as teachers and supporters of learners; as facilitators of, and innovators in, learning; our role in 'harnessing the development of communications and information technology for more effective and efficient learning and teaching' (8.73) - all this needs to be fed into the development of the institute.

This emphasis on professionalism also gives us the chance to pursue proper recognition for LA chartership within HEIs. Might there be scope for pursuing joint ILTHE/ LA accreditation for HE LIS staff who have significant teaching roles? The report notes that 'future career patterns might be expected to showÉthe erosion of historic staff categories and pay structures and also of the distinction between academic and support staff' (14.12).

Very welcome is the recommendation that HEIs review and update their staff development policies to ensure they address the changing roles of staff. This is especially so when placed alongside such observations as 'traditional definitions of roles are breaking down, and they [support staff] are being involved in a wider range of functions than in the past' (14.22). Ambitious LIS professionals should note recommendation 42 in particular 'that all HEIs should develop managers who combine a deep understanding of Communications and Information Technology with senior management experience'!

In terms of the management of our own profession, issues include the role of S/NVQs in our system of professional qualifications, and our response to recommendation 19 that the government works with representative employer and professional organisations to encourage employers to offer more work-experience for students.

Well, that's what I think. What do you make of it?

References and notes

1 National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, Higher Education in the Learning Society, HMSO, 1997 (NCIHE Chair: Sir Ron Dearing CB).

2 Kennedy, Helena. Learning Works: widening participation in Further Education. Further Education Funding Council, 1997.

3 See for example Scott, N. and Basu, A. 'Let's get adult about information skills'. Library Association Record, 99 (8), August 1997, p.428.

Roddie Shepherd is Professional Adviser (Academic), Library Association.

Feedback or comments on the contents of the printed
Record or on the Record Web pages are welcomed

record@la-hq.org.uk