Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:32:49.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Free to fee: the current account from an academic library

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Karen Latimer
Karen Latimer*
Affiliation:
The Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Get access

Abstract

The Queen’s University of Belfast set-up a fee based service in 1991 aimed initially at built environment professionals. The Architecture and Planning Information Service at the University has long been a major source of architectural and environmental information in Ireland, and has close links with the Architectural Library at University College Dublin and with professional bodies such as the Royal Society of Ulster Architects and the Royal Town Planning Institute in Northern Ireland. Problems encountered include the relationship and balance of services to internal and external (fee-paying) users, staff training, setting realistic prices, quality control, and contract issues. Future trends are likely to include the development of client-tailored services and further collaboration between providers of fee-based services from different institutions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , 1997 , pp. 24 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

1. Office of Arts and Libraries. Report by the Minister for the Arts on library and information matters during 1991. London, HMSO, 1992. (House of Commons Papers 1992-93).Google Scholar
2. Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities. Report. London, CVCP, 1985. (Jarratt Report).Google Scholar
3. University statistics, 1993-94. Vol. 3: Finance. Cheltenham, Universities’ Statistical Record, 1995.Google Scholar
4. Joint Funding Councils’ Libraries Review Group. Report. Bristol, Higher Education Funding Council for England, 1993. (Follett Report).Google Scholar
5. Analysis of 1995 strategic plans and financial forecasts. London, Higher Education Funding Council for England, 1995. (HEFCE circular 28/95).Google Scholar
6. The Queen’s University of Belfast. Minutes of meeting of Senate 15th May 1990.Google Scholar
7. Royal Society of Ulster Architects. Minutes of Council 13th May 1991.Google Scholar
8. Webb, S. Making a charge for library and information services. London, Aslib, 1994. (Aslib Know How Guide).Google Scholar
9. Relay 1996 (in press).Google Scholar
10. Wall, R. Copyright made easier. London, Aslib, 1993.Google Scholar
11. Coffman, S. and Josephine, H. ‘Doing it for money’. Library Journal, 116, 15th October 1991. pp.32–36.Google Scholar

Bibliography

1. Barrett, J. and Nolan, J. The operation of ARCHINFO: a report. Dublin, UCD, 1992.Google Scholar
2. Breaks, M. Exploiting academic enterprise. Refer, 6 (3), Autumn 1990. pp.13–20.Google Scholar
3. Nicholson, H. Uncomfortable bedfellows: enterprise and academic libraries, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 24 (1), March 1992. pp.9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Norton, B. Charging for library and information services. London, Library Association, 1988.Google Scholar
5. Redican, H. Charging for information services to the private sector: a review of current practice. Sheffield, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, 1990. (Occasional Papers, 13).Google Scholar
6. Tilson, Y. Income generation and pricing in libraries. Library Management, 15 (2), 1994. pp.5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. White, B. Maintaining the balance: external activities in academic libraries. London, British Library Board, 1992. (BL Research Paper 100).Google Scholar
8. White, B. Striking the balance: external services in academic libraries. London, British Library Board, 1987. (BL Research Paper 30).Google Scholar