DLF White Paper
Our white paper, published in 2019, reports on the findings of the Digital Library Futures project (2017-2019), which investigates the impact of Non-Print Legal Deposit (NPLD) on academic legal deposit libraries and their users in the United Kingdom. This white paper provides the first research into this topic, and represents a benchmark study which holds relevance for other nations dealing with the implementation of e-legal deposit. It argues that discussions of NPLD have paid too little attention to user behaviour and requirements, and that it is necessary to adopt an ongoing user-focused evaluation framework to inform NPLD planning and implementation. It is freely available to download from:
Gooding, P., Terras, M. & Berube, L. (2019). Towards User-Centric Evaluation of UK Non-Print Legal Deposit: A Digital Library Futures White Paper: elegaldeposit.org/resources.
Executive Summary
Legal deposit, which ensures the systematic preservation of published output for future generations, has existed in English law since 1662, and British law since 1710. The Copyright Act 1911, updated by the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003, makes provision for six legal deposit libraries to receive copies of print publications including books, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, sheet music, and maps. In 2013, legal deposit was extended to non-print publications published online and offline, including eBooks, eJournals, electronic mapping, the UK Web Archive and other electronic materials.
While the regulations support the systematic collection of born-digital publications, they also restrict access to this collection to protect the interests of rights-holders and content creators.
The aim of Digital Library Futures was therefore to understand how the posterity-driven mission
of NPLD interacts with contemporary access and usage. We worked with the Bodleian Libraries , University of Oxford and Cambridge University Library, with the support of the British Library, to understand the impact of NPLD upon two key stakeholders: 1.) academic deposit libraries in theUK; and 2.) users of academic deposit libraries in the UK. Our findings therefore focus on scholarly and non-commercial usage of NPLD collections. We collected a broad primary evidence base: expert interviews with librarians, academics, publishers, and policymakers; surveys of current users of academic deposit libraries; and webometric data relating to usage of NPLD collections. We draw here upon this robust empirical evidence to propose a new paradigm for evaluating NPLD in the UK.
The white paper is split into five sections. Section 1 provides an introduction to the research context of the project and defines the research questions. Section 2 presents the background for the introduction of NPLD in the United Kingdom and explains the access protocols for users ofNPLD collections in the legal deposit libraries. Section 3 presents the research project, introduces our project partners, defines how we understand impact and value in relation to NPLD, and outlines the project methodology. Section 4 summarises the research findings, in sections relating to the five key challenges identified in Section 1. Section 5 concludes by introducing a framework for user-centric evaluation of Non-Print Legal Deposit.
Our conclusions approach the research questions in terms of value and impact. First, we found that the NPLD regulations were seen as a huge success when considered in terms of the intrinsic value of legal deposit collections. Our interviewees emphasised the prestige and posterity value of NPLD collections; they associated NPLD with the core mission of legal deposit libraries; and they valued the unique digital materials that comprise NPLD collections. Legal deposit regulations therefore remain essential to ensure a comprehensive national collection that will provide a vital resource for scholars in years to come.
However, the instrumental value of NPLD has not been fully realised. As a result, the impact of NPLD upon users of academic deposit libraries has been limited and is likely to remain so until several aspects of NPLD access are addressed. First, access protocols for NPLD fail to support information seeking behaviour and user needs in respect of digital library collections. Users increasingly rely upon personal devices and specialist software, and remote access to materials, whereas NPLD was designed to mirror access to print legal deposit collections. Second, the accessarrangements restrict all actions relating to NPLD materials, except for those allowed in the regulations, and in perpetuity. The restrictions have already led to problems: the libraries can only provide accessible copies to visually impaired users, whereas the Equality Act 2010 extends these rights to all disabled users; and text and data mining with NPLD collections is not allowed despite the 2014 exception to copyright law. Third, little work has been done by academic legal deposit libraries to connect specific user groups with relevant NPLD collections for various reasons.
Web archives, for instance, are still poorly used by scholars, and it is therefore difficult for librarians to be clear about the value of the UK Legal Deposit Web Archive to researchers. Finally, the NPLD regulations were formulated with reference to print materials, despite the differing affordances of digital media and the associated changes in publishing, academic practice, and information seeking behaviour. The continuation of print as a default reference point shows a misunderstanding of the changing requirements for collecting, preserving, and making accessible contemporary digital collections that risks diminishing their relevance to users.
Our research found little evidence of a strategic approach to considering NPLD collections as a service to users, which is a major contributor to the above problems. The existing literature
focuses on the following four pillars of NPLD strategy: collection development, including selection and metadata; long-term digital preservation of NPLD materials; technical aspects including systems capture, ingest, and standards; and regulatory aspects. Studies that focus upon users of NPLD collections are notably absent. Going forward, users should be understood as the fifth pillar upon which to develop effective NPLD strategy. To establish users as core to NPLD, we propose an ongoing user-focused evaluation framework to influence NPLD planning and implementation. Thisframework should be informed by longitudinal data collection and analysis, with the aim of making NPLD collections accessible and meaningful for users. We propose that the framework should be built upon the following five tenets:
- The long-term beneficiaries of NPLD are users, not publishers or libraries.
- The diversity of digital media reflect a major change in information sharing, society, libraries,and research communities, which necessitates re-evaluation of the assumption that printmedia remain the most useful reference point for defining access protocols.
- Publishers are entitled to protect their commercial and legitimate interests but the impact ofOpen Access upon academic publishing and licensing cannot be ignored.
- Libraries must be empowered to take actions to make collections accessible, usable, andmeaningful, based on evidenced trends in user behaviour and user needs.
- The first four tenets require continued collaboration between libraries, publishers and user
groups.
Comments are closed
Comments to this thread have been closed by the post author or by an administrator.