A Digest of the 1993 Report on British Academic Libraries
By Taylor Ruhl
Well, here we are in England. The dream of a conference at Newbold which began in casual conversation at Southern College in 1991 is becoming reality. Having had the privilege of making the initial contacts with Newbold on behalf of ASDAL about the possibility of holding this meeting here this year, I want to take this opportunity to thank all the folks here who were so willing to have us come and have worked so hard to prepare for our visit. And I want to thank Adu for the invitation to make this presentation which made it possible for me to attend ASDAL this year.
This conference will include opportunities for some unique trips which might be considered tourist activities or sightseeing. But I believe they will be far more than that. I believe they will be exceptional educational field trips. Experiencing some highlights of this great historic country can be highly educational. We will have the privilege on Friday of visiting Oxford University. In May of 1994 I enjoyed spending some time in residence at Oxford for a seminar on English libraries and librarianship as part of my doctoral classwork. My purpose this morning is to provide a lens through which you can view British higher education and British academic libraries this week in a profitable, constructive manner.
Most foreign institutions of higher education are agencies of the central government, as is the case in Great Britain. Although they have varying degrees of academic autonomy, they are not merely owned but also managed by their government. Their operating and capital budgets, derived either exclusively or primarily from government funds, are assigned and often substantially managed by government. Also, most of these institutions receive no tuition income because no tuition is charged. Higher education in other countries is almost universally sponsored, and to varying degrees controlled, by the government. Most countries have national university laws that govern this. A student’s opportunity to enter higher education in these countries is a benefit conferred by government, restricted to a minority, and very much sought after. In the United States, state colleges and universities resemble our independent colleges and universities resemble our independent colleges and universities more than they do the government-owned universities of other nations. (Muller in Rowland, 1986)
The American and British systems of higher education, in particular, differ in several important respects. The first, and most obvious distinction is in numbers – there are many more institutions of higher education in the United States than in Great Britain. Second, beyond scale, the American system is more diverse than the British, ranging from two-year community colleges to four-year liberal arts colleges to major research universities. Great Britain has few private institutions of higher education as they exist in the U,.S., and certainly none comparable in size or significance to private American institutions like Harvard or Stanford. American colleges and universities receive financial support from a complex tapestry of sources – tuition, federal and state grants, and contributions. By way of contrast, the principal patron of British higher education has been the state. Most British universities are 90% government funded. Third, Americans are more democratic, more populist, in their attitudes toward access to higher education. Nearly 50 percent of the graduates of American high schools go on to college or university; in Britain, only about 20 percent. Fourth, relating particularly to libraries, the great British universities, such as those at Oxford and Cambridge, are served by a number of independent “college” libraries in addition to their great “university” libraries. British academic librarianship includes almost nothing comparable to the small private college libraries common in the United States.. The concerns of British academic libraries might be expected, then, to differ significantly from those of American academic libraries. Despite their differences, colleges and universities in both our countries are confronted with serious demands and do have common interests (Brademas, 1992).
Based on the national administration and funding of British higher education, Higher Education Funding Councils exist for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These Councils commissioned a joint study of the status of library service which I had the privilege of studying in depth last year as part of the seminar at Oxford University. In spite of the differences clearly identifiable between British and American higher education, the 1993 Report of the Commission recognizes, interestingly and early on, that many of the issues identified and considered “need to be set in an international context where the U.K. is only one of many players” (p.12). This survey of the Joint Funding Councils’ Libraries Review Group: Report (1993) will serve as a lens through which we can examine British academic librarianship and will show that American and British academic libraries share significant concerns and highlight potentially valuable insights from the British view of these concerns. Most of these will, I believe, sound so relevant and familiar that you may forget we’re talking about British, rather than American, academic libraries.
British academic educators and librarians appreciate that there will be enormous diversity of academic library and related provisions within higher education during the next five to ten years. The [British] Higher Education Funding Council found the existence of great differences between their libraries and concluded that there is no single management or resource allocation model which can serve as a blueprint. The existence of this despite the seeming uniformity of British higher education in comparison to what exists in America suggests that American academic libraries will be challenged with demands of even greater diversity.
The British response to this is to seek for balance and to seek for elements of good practice on which all can draw. The first point of balance recommended is between meeting information needs from within institutions and meeting them externally. This can be characterized as moving from a “holdings” to an “access” strategy, with access provided in many different ways. This has important implications for funding which will be discussed later. The Report recommended that each institution undertake a review of the position of its library in this context.
Maintaining existing excellence, alongside continuing improvements, is a principal object of the Report. Changes in teaching and learning methods are expected to put more stress on student centered learning throughout British higher education. As a result, the coherent development of learning and information resources will be required. This will require libraries to focus on the needs and perspectives of students as “users” and the library as the provider of a service similar to the total quality management philosophy much discussed in American education recently. This is expected to create the need for new approaches to quality assessment and performance indicators.
Traditional media, and the role of libraries in making them available, is expected to continue amidst the projected changes. However, the traditional view of the “library” as the sole repository and supplier of information needed to support teaching, learning and research is not expected to be adequate.
Changes in the organization of teaching and learning in Britain are also leading to changes in what is required of library faculty and staff. In addition to the changes in teaching and learning methods as well as the changes in types of media, the increasing lack of information skills among incoming students is expected to place broadened, special demands on [information professionals]. Adequate training and careful deployment of [information professionals] are considered, then, to be the most important influences on change in library and information provision.
The Review Group considered strategic planning essential due to the importance of information provision in British higher education and recommended that all institutions should develop a clear strategy for meeting their information needs. This addressed not only [information professionals], but the rest of the faculty and administration of the institutions as well. While each institution is expected to adopt its own approach, the areas of library staffing, physical resources, financial planning, and quality assurance were identified as areas that should be clearly identified within institution’s strategic plans.
The Review Group noted that library and related information services are rarely given prominence in institutional planning, and that much closer attention to libraries in higher education planning is needed. Such planning is expected to generate better relationships between those responsible for library management and planning and those responsible for institutional management. It was recommended that the British Higher Education Funding Councils should request a specific component for library and related services in the strategic planning information they periodically seek based on an institution’s own information strategy.
The Review Group pointed out that systematic planning between library and teaching staff is the responsibility of the institution, and not simply of individual staff working in isolation. Particularly, the library should be viewed as a resource for independent learning and as a partner in course delivery. It was thus recommended that institutions should ensure effective coordination between teaching staff and those responsible for library and related provision.
It follows that there should be clear means of establishing how effective libraries are in meeting their defined aims. Throughout the United Kingdom, much effort has recently been devoted to establishing performance indicators (Pls) against which the activity of higher education institutions can be measured and judged. The Review Group concluded that a coherent and generic set of Pls for libraries should be developed as soon as possible.
Recognition was given to the inevitable tension between the desire to have a small number of simple indicators which can be employed in all libraries, and the need for these to be reliable, consistent, and thorough. It was suggested that not all indicators will be appropriate in each case to which they are applied, varying in applicability to different institutions. They are intended to prompt questions as much as provide answers.
The importance of qualitative measures, especially output measures, in addition to the quantitative measures which are easier to collect and manipulate was articulated. Indicators which fail to take qualitative factors into account were deemed inadequate and misleading. Increased concern for output and the aims of individual institutions should be emphasized. This parallels the concerns of American regional accrediting associations for qualitative output measures which have stirred debate and concern among American academic library administrators in recent years.
Of special interest is the call for the assessment of teaching quality as well, with explicit attention to the contribution of library and related [information] services to maintaining and improving the quality of teaching and learning. This is an important correlation which could place healthy new demands on libraries. The recommendation was made that systematic and explicit account of the quality of library and related services in the assessment of teaching quality be part of auditing each institution’s quality assurance processes. It was suggested that this recommendation be given high priority.
Given the importance of library and information services to the effective delivery of teaching and research identified in the Report, urgent action was recommended to address serious influences on the support of teaching and research. First, recent developments in the organization of teaching and learning are placing increased demands on information professionals. Improved liaison between the library and teaching staff was called for, with attention to clear identification of their respective responsibilities. This has important implications for the old, yet continuing, American debate over the faculty status of librarians, suggesting a strengthened identification of librarians as faculty. The role of libraries in supporting teaching is especially urged as a consideration of the assessment of teaching quality.
Second, serious pressure on space in British libraries exists. Institutions are urged to make the best use of available space and consider how longer opening hours and the development of high density storage arrangements can help reduce the pressure. This pressure is especially related to a 70 percent growth in students during the last seven years which is one of the few distinct differences seen between the Report and American academic library concerns.
The Report recognizes that it is not feasible to expect every institution to be able to provide for all the research related needs of those working in them. The Council recognized that not all British academic libraries can be expected to provide support for research to the same extent as they do for teaching. Therefore, interlibrary cooperation (which will be discussed in greater detail later), special funding for research collections accessible system-wide, continued funding to the two legal deposit libraries, Oxford and Cambridge, and strategic planning for the support of research in all subjects were recommended.
Teaching and research are distinctly different processes supported by libraries, and the Council recognized important differences in the extent of support necessary for teaching as compared to research. While not all academic libraries are expected to maintain research collections, especially of the breadth and depth of institutions such as Oxford, the importance of adequate library facilities emerged as one of the single most important factors for the support of high quality undergraduate teaching.
One means suggested for achieving this was the effective communication by teaching staff of their own needs and those of their students. Many problems arise because of confused and insufficiently integrated flows of information about what is needed by students. Systematic planning between the library and teaching faculty was seen as the responsibility of the institution rather than simply of individual staff.
While student’s learning needs have traditionally been comprised of books and journals, they increasingly include a mix of print and other media. The Council suggested that sufficient thought is not always given by teachers as to how far students are expected to meet their learning needs through the use of library resources. One interesting suggestion in the Report was that of a coordinated campus-wide database listing learning resources for each course to which students, teachers, library staff, and the bookstore could refer. The Council recommended that some demonstration projects of this type be funded by the British government.
While the primary concern of the Report is for the support of teaching, it also considered the role of support for academic research. The Council noted that most libraries make little or no explicit distinction in budgeting terms between provision for teaching and research. Separate consideration was deemed valuable, although the practical difficulties of distinguishing these two functions, and the overlap between them, was recognized.
Libraries are crucial for research in all subject areas. For scientific and technological research, periodicals were deemed the major research tool. Access to a wide range of recent issues, rather than to long runs of back issues, was identified as most important. In addition, scientific researchers need to be able to browse through indices and abstracts of articles, then obtain the full text if detailed consideration is needed. The ability to do literature searches, access to effective inter-library loan, and access to large bibliographic databases were also considered vital.
Research in the humanities and the social sciences were noted to have different needs. While access to periodicals is still needed, longer runs of a particular title are often more important than in the sciences. However, periodicals do not have the significance in these fields that they do in the sciences. Books complement journals as the medium for the publication of research. A borader range of library support was actually deemed more important for the social sciences, lending credence to the old assertion that faculty in the social sciences need and support libraries to a greater degree than do science faculty.
Support for research in Great Britain was deemed uneven, although the Report recommends that all libraries should be expected to meet a reasonable level of basic research needs for their academic staff and research students. Research in British higher education is expected to become more selective, however. Not all institutions will be expected to carry out significant amounts of research across all subjects which they teach. This has important implications for library provision for research as well.
British Academic libraries are likely to have to become more explicit about their separate roles in respect to teaching and research including in the planning and budgeting processes. It will no longer be feasible or even desirable to expect each institution itself to provide for all the research needs of its staff and users. The Council thus called for the development of networks of research libraries. Retrospective conversion of catalogs is suggested as an important contribution to such networks, a long-familiar topic in American academic libraries that has obviously not losts its usefulness or interest.
The possibilities of cooperation between libraries in differnet higher education institutions of the United Kingdom has long been a subject of discussion. There are many examples of local coordinating and networking arrangements between libraries, although these have usually been dominated by public libraries. The Report suggests that participating libraries and their patrons derive significant benefit from cooperation and that, although there is no single model which would apply to cooperation, the concept should be encouraged as the responsibility of individual institutions. While prime responsibility for meeting the library and information needs of students, teachers, and researchers remains with the home institution, the Report suggests that there are opportunities to develop a more strategic approach in the promotion of cooperation and sharing to supplement the facilities of any one institution.
It was recommended that government grants be made available to institutions to support specialized research collections which are widely used by researchers in the humanities from other institutions but whose provision and maintenance gives rise to significant additional costs which cannot reasonably be met from regular institutional funding. A further recommendation concerns the study of whether these should be awarded on a regional approach and how access would be assured.
While information technology will be addressed later, its role in library cooperation must be recognized here. Presently, the Joint Academic Network (JANET) links 150 sites in the United Kingdom and provides connections to networks worldwide. Certainly significant, sophisticated progress in cooperation exists although the Council deemed it of continuing importance. The Report further recommends the establishment of subject based consortia as well as metropolitan and regional consortia to collaborate in developing electronic document delivery routes.
The Consortium of [British] University Research Libraries (CURL) maintains a database aimed at sharing and reducing cataloging costs. The Review Group recommended that funding be provided to develop and operate the CURL database as a national OPAC service.
Librarians find funding a universal challenge regardless of the topic of concern, and the Report addresses this extensively. The Council felt that the major part played by libraries in meeting the information needs of staff and students is illustrated by the scale of investment in them, one of the most important categories of expenditure made by higher education institutions. Much spending on libraries – just over half in most British academic libraries – is for staff.
A familiar concern to American academic librarians is that of the disproportionate increase in the price of books and periodicals as well as in the volume of publications, especially periodicals. The pricing of scientific periodicals, and the growth in their number, has been of foremost concern. British attempts to protect periodical spending have often been at the expense of book purchasing. A vicious circle exists in which higher prices prompt more cancellations, which in turn promotes further price increases.
The Council interestingly felt that, in many respects, libraries have faced more difficult financial pressures than other areas of British higher education. Howver, spending on British university libraries has declined as a proportion of total institutional recurrent expenditure, from four percent in 1980-81 to about 2,8 percent in 1991-92. This is the result of conscious decisions to divert resources into other areas, some of which may complement library service, such as information technology. The 1967 Parry report suggested that in order to provide “facilities…comparable to those which exist in other developed countries” the ratio should be increased to approximately six percent (comparable to the common American percentage standard of recent years). Care in interpreting this data is suggested in the Report, however, due to the heterogeneity of library services in higher education, and the different approaches adopted to meet user’s needs. This must also be juxtaposed to the British recommendation (and American trend) to qualitative rather than quantitative measures of success. The Review Group concluded that spending norms of this kind were no longer useful or appropriate, that a single norm would not serve any useful purpose. This is primarily credited to the fact that diversity in demands and service among libraries is much more prevalent than at the time of the Parry report. Such standards were also considered by the Review Group to undermine the flexibility of local management to respond to their own circumstances. The recommendation, then, was that each institution should continue to be responsible for deciding the level of spending it makes on its library services while reviewing and balancing performance indicators, the needs of library users, strategic plans, the quality of its library provision, supply and price factors, and the library’s equipment needs. While the Report calls diversity legitimate, it calls for resource allocation methods and spending decisions to be transparent and accountable.
The Review Group posed two important questions in resource allocation: How are decisions arrived at in cases where there is a funding shortfall? And, how are decisions made when it is necessary to choose between spending on collections vs. Staff? A library tending towards an access rather than a holdings strategy will be likely to spend more of its budget on staff. Therefore, the Review Group recommended that each institution should review whether the balance between spending on staff and other elements is appropriate in its own circumstances.
Purchasing is an important consideration in library budgeting and finance. Although when compared with the U.S. market U.K. purchasing power is small. British libraries still have a potentially powerful role as buyers (as do their American counterparts), and there is significant scope for negotiated price discounts. Thus, academic purchasing consortia are well developed and have achieved substantial price discounts in many areas. This has been especially true for hardware and software licensing and purchase. However, significant discounts on books and periodicals have not been obtained.
The Review Group felt that there is scope for improving the management and delivery of library services with the resources currently available. Nevertheless, they believe that there are also some problems which cannot be addressed without further resources. For instance, while longer opening hours can make some contribution to meeting additional space needs, financial pressure has influenced a reduction of opening hours in many places. The Group recommended that each institution should review the opening hours of its libraries for balance between need and funding.
Changes in teaching methods can also create financial pressures. While money to provide for library resources has come under increasing pressure, changes in teaching methods can increase the demand for library resources.
Returning to the familiar concern of financing periodical subscriptions, the Group recommended cooperation with the Association of American Universities and other appropriate U.S. bodies to find practical and effective ways of influencing the periodicals market in a manner which both provides value for money for periodical purchasers and a fair return for publishers. Here is an interesting example of an international concern in academic libraries and an international response initiative.
The use of research collections is yet another budgetary concern. British academic libraries are finding it increasingly difficult to support from purely institutional funds the costs of a facility whose benefits are enjoyed more widely. Thus the call for increased government support of significant research collections.
With just over half of most British academic library spending invested in staff, the provision of staffing was another obvious and important consideration for the Review Group. The importance of the training and management of library staff has grown in recent years for several reasons. The ratio of students to professional library staff has steadily increased in the last ten years. In addition, changes in the organization of teaching and learning have led to changes in what is expected of librarians. Failure to provide staff with adequate training and to utilize them effectively represents one of the single most important constraints on change and development in library and information provision in Britain.
A separate report, Supporting Expansion, was prepared and published to deal more specifically with these issues. It confirmed that a range of developments were changing the demands placed on British academic librarians, requiring a broader range of skills from them. The report revealed that, while some institutions have made considerable progress in improving their staff development, a very large number have not.
On Sunday evening you will be privileged to hear Mr. Dennis Porter speak. Mr Porter is an Adventist librarian who is retired from the Bodleian Library of Oxford University, a highly interesting speaker who has enjoyed a very interesting career. On Friday we will probably see some of the great antique reading rooms at Oxford, including the one where Mr. Porter worked. These are full of rare books and manuscripts which are not only British treasures, but international treasures of great academic significance. From this a visitor might make the mistaken assumption that the virtual electronic library is not a concept or fact of significance in Britain. However, the emergence of the electronic library and the widespread availability of electronic information are very real invluences at Oxford and throughout British academic libraries. As in libraries anywhere, the virtual library is a more invisible service. And, set amidst the magnificence of a place like Oxford University, the virtual library is apt to be even less noticeable than in a modern American setting. The virtual electronic library is providing many opportunities to enhance the role of British librarians in support of learning and research. However, some librarians are daunted by the challenge as are their American counterparts. If the full potential of technological advances is to be realized, the Review Group felt there must be an accompanying investment in staff awareness and training, that librarians must take advantage of appropriate training, and that in-service courses and other training materials must be developed.
Embracing of these developments in information technology is appropriate for libraries because their business is the provision and management of information, not print media, and developments in technology which facilitate this are opening new possibilities, as well as creating new demands, for libraries. Technology has changed the nature of British libraries already, and the rate of change is accelerating, making possible whole new areas of service. While technology has the potential to change information provision in British higher education, even its most optimistic advocates suggest that change will take place gradually and will need to be carefully managed in balance with the offering of traditional library resources.
One of the most important questions in this regard is who should be responsible for the delivery of information services to campus. Some British institutions have implemented organizational “convergence”, placing the library and other information support services such as media services and computing services under a single managerial structure. The aim has been to achieve organizational and managerial integration to best ensure their functional integration and improved coordination in planning. The Review Group considers that there are many advantages to this convergence, especially in facilitating the development of an integrated information strategy. Computing and networking experts are facing problems today that librarians have already had to deal with for hundreds of years: those of classifying (networked) information resources, of uniquely identifying them and then of enabling users to identify and locate the information which they need. The Review Group urged attention to the further development of navigation tools, trianing in their use, and continued cooperation/collaboration between librarians and other information professionals.
On-demand publishing and the electronic book are specific areas considered by the Report where information technology can contribute to solving problems faced by British academic libraries. The Review Group wishes to promote the wider user and acceptability of the electronic book and on-demand publishing. Perceived advantages are improved access to material, ease of student use, and ease for teachers in providing flexible, tailored assignments.
The Review Group felt that the potential for further application of information technology was the single most important area considered. While they cautioned that the future cannot be forecast specifically, they urged that it be embraced with enthusiasm. They predicted that most libraries will continue to combine traditional media with electronic media for the foreseeable future, and the pure electronic or “virtual library” will be rare.
One of the threats to the development of information technology and its adoption by libraries is the issue of copyright. The British see owners of information as threatened regarding their ability to control distribution, while users are threatened that the publishers will not permit copying of information into electronic formats.
The Review Group viewed these concerns as legitimate, stating that the need to protect investment and the use of intellectual property is important. On the other hand, they stated that publishers should recognize that the use and manipulation of copyrighted material is inevitable in higher education, and that it is by no means always unreasonable or illegitimate. They predicted that the British legislative framework affecting copyright is unlikely to change significantly in the foreseeable future.
As in the U.S., British universities have considered the question of expanding their role as publishers in response to the questions of copyright and journal pricing. The Review Group felt that producing, marketing, and distributing books and journals is a complicated and expensive matter which institutions in general have neither the skills nor the resources to undertake. Oxford and Cambridge Universities could be viewed as exceptions since they operate internationally noted presses, although their libraries are, in fact, significantly impacted by these questions. Furthermore, the electronic dissemination of material does not in itself provide any easy answers to copyright questions, nor simple solutions to libraries’ funding problems. The academic community is, however, entitled to expect that regulation will produce systems which work speedily, have predictable results, and are demonstrably fair.
As important as the developments in information technology are, they are expected to have only a modest impact on space shortages in British academic libraries. While the type of space needed for users in the electronic age has been a topic of interesting conjecture, the Review Group felt that it will still not be effective to place students in a seminar room or other unplanned, undedicated space and expect them to be able to undertake the same kind of work as they could in a traditional library building. In other words, British higher education expects library buildings to be continued importance.
A majority of libraries surveyed for the Report consider space to be the single most important problem which they will encounter in the remainder of this century. Further pressure is expected to come from the changing nature of the space needed as libraries continue to redefine space needs and working practices to accommodate the needs of students for non-traditional resources. While British academic libraries will need to provide an environment where students can work with a range of learning resources, they must also continue to be concerned about providing an environment conducive to study.
As mentioned previously, changes in hours are being examined as a possible solution to space problems. While the Review Group recommended that each institution should review the opening hours of its libraries, they felt that this will not solve the space pressures identified in the study. British libraries have extensive, successful experience with high density storage and the Review Group recommended that institutions should continue to consider this as an important space-saving solution.
The impact of student population on library service is, perhaps, the point on which American and British libraries differ most at present. Between 1989 and 1992 the number of FTE undegraduate students in Britain rose by 57 percent. Although that growth varied widely between institutions, all parts of the U.K. experienced growth at a similar rate. This has, of course, increased the ratio of student to professional librarians in the last ten years, presenting new challenges for adequate service. While some state-funded American institutions are experiencing impacted enrollment due to budgetary retrenchment, dramatic enrollment increses have not been an American problem in recent years.
Aside from an increase in student population, the nature of the population holds interesting parallels for American librarians. The make-up of the British higher education student population has changed to include more part-time and mature students who tend to create different demands on libraries. Book purchasing by students has declined, due in part to increases in book prices and also to changes in the student support system.
A related concern is how far the availability of collections can keep pace with the growth in student numbers and the load on libraries arising from this. Money to provide for books and other materials has come under increasing pressure from the price increases considered previously, and this is being compounded by the increase in student population. Increased emphasis is being placed on “short loan” (comparable to American reserve collections) to provide multiple copies for short loan periods as a means of alleviating demand from an increased number of students. Resource sharing between libraries is another alternative considered. It is also possible that developments and changes in teaching methods have also intensified the use of library collections.
The Report identified a number of areas of concern regarding institutional relationships and made recommendations for addressing them. Regardless of the problems, a basic recommendation was that, whatever the organization of information services, the senior person responsible for these should take a leading role in the senior management of the institution. And, regardless of its management structure, each institution should seek to promote the coordinated planning of all its teaching and learning resources.
American and British libraries have more in common than they have dissimilarities. Perhaps the greatest difference is in the problems the British face from very significant increases in higher education enrollment. We have considered the concerns of British higher education with the changing nature of teaching and learning, the nature of library collections, the nature of access to information for teaching and research, the provision of staffing to support these, and the funding of library service. I hope that it has been rewarding and instructive to see that others face problems similar to ours and to observe how they plan to respond to them.
It is interesting to note that the British not only conducted this study and published this Report, but proceeded last year to advertise internationally for a Programme Director to “take a lead in the development, promotion and full implementation of the recommendations.” It is further interest to note the qualifications for this position. Familiarity with the strategic importance of information technology developments leads the list. The British advertisement notes this post as having national importance. Like the Report which prompted its creation, the post can be seen as actually having international importance and interest and the continued results bear watching.
[Advertisement]. (1994, July 20). Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B7.
Brademas, J. “Higher education: the global perspective.” (1992). Oxford Review of Education, 18(2), p. 161-172.
Muller, S. Prologue: The definition of institutional advancement. In Rowland, A. W. Handbook of institutional advancement. (1986). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Higher Education Funding Council for England. (1993) Joint Funding Council’s Libraries Review Group: Report. Bristol, England: Author.