Response to the Library & Information Commission document Prospects: a Strategy for Action, December 1997.

Prepared by Maureen Grieves

(Response dated 31 December 1997)

The Coalition for Public Information (CoPI) welcomes Prospects: a Strategy for Action as providing a coherent framework for library & information research, development and innovation in the United Kingdom. The comments below take into account CoPI’s concern both with facilitating access to public information and with all policies affecting the public infrastructure available nationally and internationally for the carriage of all types of information. A copy of CoPI’s Manifesto is attached for reference.

The Research Programme

Connectivity

The core theme of connectivity is fundamental to CoPI’s concerns, and all the examples are of interest. We are however particularly pleased to see the priority given to: "public and private sector models for dissemination of government information"; "the benefits of collaborative, co-operative and multi-sectoral approaches to specialist information access"; and concern for "the constraints on access to information".

Content

However we believe that more emphasis should be given to Government information and the resources of Government collections. This may be intended to be implicit in the statements, but it is not clear. Beyond this, CoPI is very interested in all the questions posed - particularly: "identifying any gaps by mapping the distributed national resource"; "identifying the best ways of adding value to the content of materials"; and "models for public and private sector involvement".

Competencies

This core theme is closely related to sections III: Education and IV: Enabling Communities, of CoPI’s Manifesto and is therefore of substantial interest. Of the examples listed: "the relationships between requirements, use and impact of information"; "models for evaluating the effectiveness of information-gathering skills"; and "models for delivery of training of information and knowledge workers" are of particular interest to us. However we believe that there is too much emphasis in the examples on "professional" training of library & information professionals and no specific mention of training the users (at all levels) in information skills, which we see as a major omission.

Impact and Value

The fundamental theme of the impact and value of library & information services in the information society underlies much of CoPI’s Manifesto, and all the examples given are of relevance to its interests. CoPI would give high priority to "models for information provision for the support of democracy, citizenship and community principles" where, as stated in Section II of its Manifesto, any specification for the online delivery of public information should reflect citizens’ needs, not existing official structures. Another question of special interest to CoPI is "models of information provision in other countries".

Economics

The fundamental theme of the economics of library & information services in the information society is a key area for CoPI and again underlies much of its Manifesto. CoPI certainly agrees that the whole area of copyright, intellectual property and charging for services needs urgent attention and that better national co-ordination is required in every aspect of the economics of library & information services. This is an area where it essential to involve not only the information industry, but also the relevant Government departments.

All the questions posed here are important, but those of particular interest to CoPI are: "the economic impact of legislative changes on information services"; "the impact on libraries of publisher strategies for information access"; "what models of charging are practical and desirable"; and "what are the copyright and other business implications" of digital information". CoPI feels strongly that the examples of questions listed do not adequately reflect the urgency and importance of the copyright and intellectual property issues and that, by concentrating only on economic impact, the example given ignores many other effects of such legislation, such as restricting access to information.

The Infrastructure

CoPI endorses the need for an effective and efficient infrastructure for research and welcomes the Library & Information Commission’s proposed role in providing practical encouragement and support as well as acting as catalyst and facilitator.

In general, CoPI is concerned at the scant mention here of the involvement of policy makers (and therefore funders) in Government departments, research councils, and the information industry. Although these bodies are mentioned, little emphasis is given to how their further involvement might be achieved, which CoPI believes is essential. The expenditure on research and development by these bodies, both directly and indirectly relevant to the information sector, is enormous when compared to the budget of the British Library Research & Innovation Centre and even the JISC eLib programme. CoPI considers that the Library & Information Commission must vigorously pursue its general research co-ordination role with these bodies. This is particularly important when it comes to transferring research into practice, but the Commission’s involvement at the earlier planning and funding stages of the process is more likely to ensure that the results are taken seriously and applied.

Forward Planning of Research

CoPI agrees that it is essential that the research agenda is set within a UK-wide national and regional context and that the results from existing research are fed into future programmes. However the scope of this national, regional and research context must be as broad as possible - i.e. it should not be restricted just to library and information bodies or researchers. Consultation in the "wider constituency" is vital and must involve policy makers.

CoPI considers that "a feasibility study to look at alternative and innovative methods for gathering, evaluating and prioritising research ideas" should be given a very high priority. It should be broadly based and of relevance to a wide sector of policy makers and funders in both the public and private sectors. CoPI also endorses the aim of introducing a nationally co-ordinated programme of environmental scanning.

Funding Research

As stated above, CoPI is aware that the funding of library & information research is difficult to quantify. This is particularly so with academic research, where we believe that the amount of work relevant to the library and information sector has always been underestimated because it is so widely scattered and is not always support by research council funds. Other sources of funding that are underestimated are: the European Commission, where there is relevant work in several directorates other than DGXIII, such as DGII and DGX; Government departments and agencies, where there is no systematic liaison on information related issues; and private sector funding, where surprisingly the report makes no mention of the information industry as such. In the public library sector, too, we are aware of useful research which is undertaken at local level, but never widely reported and certainly not centrally recorded or costed.

CoPI would welcome any attempts to determine the real level of funding of information related research, but acknowledges that this would be difficult to do as a one off exercise and that to do it on a regular basis would require substantial funding and Government support.

 

Establishing a Funding Base

CoPI agrees that, in order for the Commission to fulfil its important strategic role at national level, more investment in library and information research will be needed along with the development of funding mechanisms for research which provide additional levels of financial support through multi-sectoral collaboration. CoPI feels that the multi-sectoral element of this role is crucial and should be emphasised in the Commission’s evidence to ensure that the Government endorses increased collaboration by funding agencies. With this in mind, CoPI supports liaison between the Commission and the other funding agencies to see what additional sums of money are likely to be available for deployment on its programme of strategic research.

Although CoPI recognises that the private sector is unlikely to share its research, we feel that there are enough areas of general interest and concern for the private sector of the information industry to be prepared to contribute towards funding research of a general nature. This is likely to be more attractive to private sector firms where there is also other funding available, whether this be from Government or charitable sources. Consideration should therefore be given to establishing either a general research fund to which the information industry could contribute, or a mechanism whereby private sector firms could contribute to specific projects.

Assuring the quality of research activity

CoPI agrees that there is a need for nationally accepted evaluation procedures, which it feels will become even more important in a multi-sectoral context. It therefore supports the suggested review of existing quality systems and the endorsement of guidelines.

CoPI strongly supports the proposal to set up five national panels to review the progress and impact of research projects, research needs and innovative ideas. It feels that it will be particularly important to select some members who are able to reflect the concerns of stakeholders outside the library & information services community.

Communication information about research

CoPI agrees that a more effective communication system is required to co-ordinate research activities, to implement the strategy and to disseminate information about research, and it endorses the Commission’s plans, including an Internet World Wide Web gateway. We particularly support the suggestion of including resources outside the traditional sectoral boundaries of library & information services and filling gaps in the information resource. We also see as very important the need to promote library & information related research to a wider constituency.

Transferring research into practice

As stated above, CoPI feels that there should be more emphasis in this section on transferring library & information research into practice in other sectors. There is too much emphasis at present on library & information professionals and, as presently stated, even the information industry would seem to be excluded from the Strategy as many of its staff are computer and IT specialists. Library & information research can be applied widely, and allowance should be made for this. Many people and organisations have problems which they do not realise are "information problems". It will be particularly important to get research ideas across to policy makers in all sectors, such as Government departments, some of whom will have access to information professionals, while others will not. In conclusion, CoPI endorses the ideas for transferring research into practice, but feels that their scope should be broadened and should be concerned with more than simply the library & information professional.