Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:23:56.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subsidising end-user access to research databases: From Card File to the World Wide Web

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Joseph A. Busch  and
Angela Giral
Joseph A. Busch
Affiliation:
Getty Art History Information Program, Santa Monica, California, U.S.A.
Angela Giral
Affiliation:
Avery Library, Columbia University, New York, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

Through the last decade the Getty Art History Information Program (AHIP), recently renamed the Getty Information Institute, has been subsidising end-user online access to scholarly research databases. A study of subsidised access to Dialog databases provided to Getty Centre resident scholars has been reported by Marcia Bates, who found that searching patterns in humanities research differ substantially from those previously investigated in science and the social sciences. The cost of collecting research information and of making it available greatly exceeds revenues generated from its use; inability to measure use is an obstacle to justifying maintenance of subsidies at present levels. Key factors to be considered in assessing the relative value of different models of information provision include information quality, number of accesses, royalties received, user charges, producer subsidy, and user input. Analysis suggests that the non-profit method provides the best mode of access and supports the decision of AHIP to work in partnership with the Research Libraries Group.

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , 1997 , pp. 38 - 42
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

1. Woo, Janice. ‘The Online Avery Index End-User Pilot Project: Final Report.’ Information technology and Libraries, September 1988 p.223–229.Google Scholar
2. Bates, Marcia J. ‘The Design of Databases and other Information Resources for Humanities Scholars: the Getty On-line Searching Project Report Number 4.’ On-line & CDROM Review no. 18 1994 p.331–340.Google Scholar
3. Bates, Marcia J. ‘Document Familiarity in relation to Relevance, Information Retrieval Theory, and Bradford’s Law: the Getty On-line Searching Project Report Number 5.’ (manuscript under review).Google Scholar
4. Bates, Marcia J., Wilde, Deborah N., and Siegfried, Susan. ‘An Analysis of Search terminology Used by Humanities Scholars: the Getty On-line Searching Project Report Number 1.’ The Library Quarterly no. 63 January 1993 p.1–39.Google Scholar
5. Bates, Marcia J., Wilde, Deborah N., and Siegfried, Susan. ‘Research Practices of Humanities Scholars in an On-line Environment: the Getty Online Searching Project Report Number 3.’ LISR no.17 1995 p.5–40.Google Scholar
6. Siegfried, Susan, Bates, Marcia J., and Wilde, Deborah N. ‘A Profile of End-User Searching Behavior by Humanities Scholars: the Getty On-line Searching Project Report Number 2.’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science no. 44 June 1993 p.19–291.Google Scholar
7. Saracevic, Tefko, and Paul, Kantor. ‘A Study of Information Seeking and Retrieving. II. Users, Questions, and Effectiveness.’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science no. 39 May 1988 p. 177–196.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar