UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
LIBRARY SPACE REORGANISATION: TASK AND FINISH GROUP
A meeting of the Library Space Reorganisation: Task And Finish Group was held on 18 December
2007at 10.00am in Room XFi Seminar Room A.
PRESENT:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor M Overton (Chair)
Dr Stewart Barr
Prof Jonathan Barry
Mr Paul Gibbs
Prof Cathie Holden
Dr Adeline Johns-Putra
Dr John Love
Prof Stephen Mitchell
Mr Martin Myhill
Ms Ashley Petrons
Ms Michele Shoebridge
Ms Lee Snook (Convenor)
APOLOGIES:
1
Prof Stephen Neale
Membership
Professor Overton welcomed Dr Adeline Johns-Putra and clarified that her input extended
beyond the Cornwall Campus perspective and encompassed all University of Exeter issues.
2
Minutes of the last meeting
The minutes of the meeting held on 21st November 2007 were CONFIRMED.
3
Traffic Lights Update (MM)
Martin Myhill reported that all 24 Traffic Lights consultation meetings had taken place. A
record of the proposals and comments arising from the meetings were outlined in the Traffic
Lights Paper presented to the Group by MM. The general proposals had been acceptable to
all involved and the next stage would be to move forward with detailed negotiations to
implement the proposals.
It was agreed that all those involved in the Traffic Lights consultation should be kept up to
date with developments. The Library would write to all Schools, summarising the agreement
on the general principles and would include a proposed timeline for completion of the process
and clarification on disposal issues, as concern over timing and disposal issues was evident
from staff and student engagement in the Traffic Lights discussions. Ashley Petrons would
distribute this same information to the student community via the Subject Chairs and Staff
Student Liaison Committees.
The agreed proposals, together with timeline, would also be included in the Group’s report to
VCEG and Senate.
4
Site Library considerations
A number of discussions had taken place since the Group’s last meeting with those interested
in the site library proposals. In light of those discussions, revised proposals had been
formulated.
a) Law Library
The Law Library – draft proposal December 2007 paper, outlined a revised list of options and
a draft proposal which had been formulated in response to detailed consultation with Law
Library stakeholders. It was recommended that Option C – Mixed Use Model should be
accepted. This model would see the Law Collection remain within the existing two floor
footprint in the Amory Building, with some relocation of stock in order to create group work
areas which would benefit all users of the Amory Building. It would not be possible to house
the law collection on one floor only of the existing space in the Amory Building.
An open meeting had taken place in order to engage with law students on the proposals. Dr
Barr emphasised the strong feelings that had been put forward by students of the importance
of identity in recruitment and the importance of the separate Law Library to that identity. Staff
and students also indicated that 24/7 opening was not a current requirement.
In light of these views, and the fact that current usage of the Main Library had shown a
marked increase, the Mixed Use Model was recommended as the most pragmatic solution.
Further detailed negotiation with the Law School would be required in order to clarify various
2 of 4
issues relating to this model, most notably over finance since no infrastructure funds were
available for redevelopment of the Amory library space. It was also important to ensure the
needs of other Amory Building users were taken into account in creating flexible study spaces
which would benefit all Amory Building Users.
It was also recommended that this issue should be revisited in the future, once plans for
expanding the Main Library footprint, under the Forum proposals, were further progressed.
This would be an appropriate time for the Law School to reconsider the benefits of a modern
and central library facility. As online resources and other developments such as online
mooting continue to evolve, a modern 24/7 environment is likely to become increasingly
attractive.
Professor Barry emphasised that any future Law School expansion would give rise to demand
for additional office space which could only be met from the space currently occupied by the
Law Library in the Amory Building. This need to balance office and study space would need
to be considered in future discussions regarding Law School and Law Library space.
b) Arabic Collection
In light of the discussions with IAIS students and the formal response from the IAIS students
of 3 Dec 2007 it was clear that the preferred option would be for the collection to move into
AWDU, but only once an appropriate extension to AWDU had been built. In the interim it was
acceptable for the collection to remain in a new location within the Old Library.
Staff and students were very unhappy about a proposed move of the collection to the
basement level but would find it acceptable for the collection to move to another location on
the entrance level or in part of the upper stack, in that order of preference. Michele
Shoebridge noted that no exact location could be confirmed at present but that the IAIS order
of preference would be taken into account in planning the Old Library refurbishment.
It was agreed that the Library would meet with IAIS to confirm this proposal, ahead of
publication of the Group’s final report.
c) Harrison Library
A draft plan had been produced showing a remodelled Harrison Library into a flexible generic
study space, incorporating workstations and group work areas. Provision had been made for
a small collection of books to remain, but the majority would transfer to the Main Library. The
remaining collection would not be actively maintained or serviced and would decline in
importance over time.
No money was available in the infrastructure fund to cover this refurbishment. Therefore
further talks would be needed with Engineering to discuss finance and also to obtain a formal
response to the proposal.
d) St Luke’s Campus – previously discussed.
It was agreed that in addition to meetings with those Schools mentioned above, it would be
useful for all Schools to be kept up to date with the proposals as there were a number of
generic issues that would be relevant across the user community. Michele Shoebridge would
write to all Schools summarising the current proposals, in advance of the Group’s final report.
The letters would be approved by Professor Overton prior to distribution and should also be
used to inform students and Exeposé about developments.
5
Stakeholder Groups
The group discussed the best methods for Academic Services to engage with the user
community in order to listen to their views, provide timely information and address issues of
operational and strategic importance. No formal proposals were put forward but these would
be developed in light of the Group’s discussions ready for the next meeting.
3 of 4
The group considered the old Library User Group method, the use of Academic Support
Consultants and Departmental Library Representatives, the dual assurance principles and the
use of Task and Finish Groups.
There was concern that the Library User Group had become a passive receiver of information
and due to a set agenda was not as responsive or dynamic as was required. Professor Barry
noted that the ability to engage as a group on strategic issues in a forum like a user group or
focus group was of importance, particularly for wide ranging issues such as periodical
expenditure.
The group agreed that a useful model would be for day to day operational issues to be
handled in a timely fashion via communication between Academic Support Consultants and
staff/students in their departments. Strategic issues would be handled via relevant Task And
Finish Groups in order to provide the opportunity for detailed discussion, consideration and
planning.
Dr Johns-Putra noted that one to one meetings with Marketing Representatives had proved
an effective communication medium for departments on the Cornwall campus and that this
medium could prove similarly effective for communications between the Library and
Schools/Departments. Academic Support Consultants could employ various methods such as
email, web pages, one to one meetings, attendance at departmental meetings and staff
student liaison meetings in order to ensure the widest possible engagement with the user
community. Dr Love stressed the importance of using a wide variety of methods as email
alone can be misconstrued or just drop down the order of priority until brought to prominence
via other means such as meetings.
Professor Mitchell welcomed the suggestion that operational issues could be logged and
dealt with in a known time frame which would be agreed between departments and Academic
Service. This would ensure issues did not fall by the wayside but would be dealt with
promptly or referred on for more strategic consideration at a relevant Task and Finish Group.
He also advised of the need to ensure issues raised by one member of staff were
communicated to a wider audience so that the whole School had a picture of relevant
developments.
Professors Mitchell and Barry stressed the importance of putting in place an effective
mechanism for invoking the use of Task and Finish Groups once a strategic issue arises, in
the absence of any standing library user group. Under dual assurance procedures the onus
would fall on Ms Michele Shoebridge to set up a meeting for relevant topics. Topics such as
the MoveCorp proposals and periodical expenditure planning were examples of strategic
issues which would handled in this way
In light of these discussions, more specific proposals would be brought to the next meeting by
Academic Services.
6
Research strategy and Electronic Resources
Martin Myhill presented his Draft Research Strategy and E-Resources paper to the Group.
This paper did not outline a strategy as such but highlighted areas for the group to consider
such as the role of Academic Support Consultants, the use and financing of e-collections and
print collections and the use of the virtual learning environment.
Professor Overton suggested that the best way to proceed would be to refine the paper into a
series of proposals with a timeline. The focus should be on what research provision is like in
a top 10 institution and, through comparison with reasonable comparators, Exeter should
outline how it can deliver a top 10 research provision given its own history and current
constraints.
Ms Michele Shoebridge reported that the Library aspired to join the CURL fraternity, which
would open up the opportunity to bring in additional funding to develop research provision. At
present the research income per FTE metric was a bar to Exeter joining CURL but the Library
was working on improving its research space and collections in advance of this development.
Dr Love noted the problems for Biosciences researchers of accessing a sufficiently wide
range of electronic journals. Ms Shoebridge reported that funding for electronic resources
4 of 4
was a major pressure point under devolved funding arrangements and was an issue that
would need to be addressed in order to move electronic research provision forward.
Dr Johns-Putra stressed the importance of digitisation of collections to Cornwall Campus
users but noted the time constraints and permission issues that were tied to this process. Ms
Shoebridge advised that alongside large digitisation projects from Google etc, Exeter should
move forward by being selective about the process and should focus on digitisation which
could be mapped to current teaching and research and be delivered by WebCT.
Alongside digitisation Dr Johns-Putra welcomed all the proposals but acknowledged it would
be a question of priorities as to what could be achieved as building up print and electronic
collections and remodelling research space are all expensive processes. She suggested that
the forthcoming proposals should include and indication of priority areas.
Professor Overton highlighted the importance of user training, particularly with the growth and
development in electronic resources. It was acknowledged that arranging face to face
updating sessions for staff was very difficult and that the best way forward was to provide
online training which could be integrated into research and development programmes or
could be picked up at the point of need.
Professor Barry was concerned that Academic Support Consultants would have difficulty
delivering all the support outlined in section 1 of MM’s report to some of the larger Schools
and advised that the level of support that could be expected should be clearly outlined. MM
reported that Academic Subject Consultants would be making full use of all the available
technology in order to deliver the wide range of support that the report envisaged. Professor
Mitchell also recommended that in addition to using the research expertise of Academic
Subject Consultants the onus should be placed on Schools to put in place mechanisms to
harness the research expertise of existing and incoming staff and to disseminate that
expertise throughout the School. For example new members of staff could be asked to
highlight their key research resources and illustrate how and why they use them,
Ms Shoebridge reported that in other institutions the Library had input to the
teaching/research diplomas put in place for new staff and that this was not currently the place
at Exeter, but was an area the Library was looking to address. The Educational
Enhancement team and the Academic Support Consultants would be working closely to
develop online training materials for use by all researchers.
In light of these discussions proposals would be presented at the next meeting outlining the
research resources and support that can be expected of Exeter as a top 10 research
institution, given its history, constraints and reasonable comparators.
7
Report for VCEG/Senate – to be produced early in 2008 once the Group has completed its
consideration of all outstanding proposals.
8
Future Meeting
A future meeting would be required in early 2008 to address the outstanding issues outlined
above. Interim information would be sent to all Schools and student representatives as
outlined above, ahead of preparation of the final report to VCEG/Senate.