Libraries in the Workplace

Citation

Nurcombe, V.J. (1999), "Libraries in the Workplace", Library Review, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 413-424. https://doi.org/10.1108/lr.1999.48.8.413.9

Following quickly on the surveys of 1994 and 1996 published by TFPL and using information collected for their directory Who’s Who in the Information World, this latest LISU survey presents most figures by various sectors, government departments, government organisations, voluntary agencies, professional trade and learned associations, legal organisations, commercial and financial companies, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, food and drink companies, and finally, management and information consultants. Whole sector estimates and comparisons only occupy the last 40 pages of this spiral bound volume. It is anticipated that “panels will be established for each sector to provide data on an annual basis, permitting regular trend analysis”.

The survey is clearly described covering 897 respondents. The 21 per cent of returns were felt to be low and with chasing and exclusion of those reporting no library present it was raised to 48 per cent. However, it was found that over 10 per cent of the original non‐responders had not actually received the original questionnaire. However, no account is taken of the fact that, “I did not receive it” is now a euphemism for “I’ve lost it” in the same way “the cheque’s in the post” usually means “we will send it out shortly”. The questionnaire is set out in an appendix and two pages of references complement the whole. Health libraries were excluded on the grounds that they are already well covered by the NHS Librarians group.

The sampling principles for each sector differed and are described clearly, with reasons for nonresponse analysed. While the only comparable surveys are the TFPL ones the editors are thoroughly aware that the TFPL data were provided by a self‐selected sample replying from self‐interest to a questionnaire gathering information for inclusion in a directory. The information provided was perhaps perceived as a means of guaranteeing entry. The other main feature of difference is the earlier use of banding for figures of many types, where the current survey actually asked for figures and therefore tends not to average figures out as heavily. All figures are clearly presented in standardised format through each sector with plentiful use of various charts, mostly easy to interpret. The clearer structure of questions develops a useful presentation of changing information provision and use which will become even more valuable as the survey is repeated regularly.

The final summary comparing the sectors presents a broad picture within which many of the organisations will find a base for identification of their own performance and development beside what, for most of them, is the competition. Areas considered include topics which regularly feature in discussions such as the title of the information unit, the number of service points, the corporate information strategy, the usual clientele served. Interestingly, this latter suggests that more than sometimes seems apparent to offer services to external users. The smallest group in this area is the energy companies, but needless to say the professional associations have the highest potential number of users, averaging over 27,000, where all other types of unit are below 10,000 potential users. At this point as the study examines use of services and electronic communications, some of the charts become difficult to interpret, but the discussion is still clear and useful. Perhaps the last word in this long awaited and valuable survey should be left with the authors, “Even within the broad definitions of commercial vs non‐commercial organisations there are major differences between libraries operating in different industries and management frameworks. It has long been said that more research is needed in the special library field – these comparisons serve to highlight that need and whet the appetite for more, rather than satisfy it”.