- 35 PART B

USES

As mentioned in Part A, we were asked as part of the Design Study
work to collect information about possible uses of the 'ideal1 collection,
were it to be built, for research and teaching. This would provide somebasis for an assessment by or on behalf of BLR&D as to whether the 'ideal
collection is really needed, that is, is stated to be needed by research
workers and teachers, is in fact needed, and is needed for worthwhile
projects and activities*
The questionnaires used to collect the information, one for researchand two for teaching, are reproduced in Appendices 8 and 9. An estimateof the octential utility of an 'ideal* collection, to complement the
specification given in Part A, can be obtained from the responses to thequestionnaires, which are summarised below.

1.

Research projects

The table below gives those to whom the questionnaire of Appendix 8
was sent. The 48 persons listed were chosen either because they had
been involved in previous discussions of the 'ideal' collection and/or
have been active in research in recent years. The table also gives the
distribution of responses by five categories: thus 27 out of the 48
responded, 23 of them favourably with 28 projects altogether.
Name
T. Aitchison
D. Austin
K. Bakewell
E. Barraclough*G. Bates
N. Belkin
R. Bottle
M. BrittainC. Cleverdon
A. Cooper*B. Croft
S. Datta
J. Digger
L. Evans
R. Field
A. Flowerdew
A. Gray*J. Griffiths
A. Harley*D. Harper
M. Heine
V. Horsnell- A. Hindle
M. Keen

Place

Name

Place

InspecBL/BSD
Liverpool P
Newcastle U
Cambridge U
City UCity U
Loughborough U
Cranfield I
Loughborough U
Cambridge U
North London P
L.A.
InspecInspecCentre for Fnv. Stud.
Cardiff U
University C
BL/LD
Cambridge U
Newcastle P
City U
Lancaster U
C. Libr. Wales

B. Kostrewski
R. LeaJ. Leigh
M. Lynch
J. Martyn
J. Mills
A. Negus
B. Niblett
R. Oddy
R. Richens
C. van Rijsbergen
S. Robertson
A. Robson
J. Smith
K. Sparck Jones
D. Swift
J. Terry
D. VealB. Vickery
R. Wall*A. Wheatley
P. Williams
E. Wilson
P. Yates-Mercer

City U
Brunei U
BL/SRL
Sheffield U
Aslib
North London P
InspecU.C. Swansea
Aston U
C.A.B.
Cambridge U
University C
Ukcis
Belfast u
Cambridge U
Open U
A.E.R.E.
Ukcis
University C
Loughborough U
C. Libr. Wales
UMIST
Kent UCity U* = research students/assistants treated as a random sample of possible
future research workers

- 36 Total names
Total responses
Y= positive response, form(s)returned with specific project(s)details(Y) = positive response, but in
letter without organised
detail e.g. of scale*2 = interested but unable forindicated (usually good)reasons to provide detail nowN= negative response, indicating
not interested or unable toenvisage project in current
environment
mixed
Total non responses (-)

= 48
= 27

= 17

^or which nrojects = 23

= 5

= 2

= 2
= 1
=21

The research projects supplied are summarised, and salient features
relevant to the 'ideal9 collection as specified in Part A are noted, inthe table below. It must be emphasised that these brief projectdescriptions are our own summaries of typically paragraph length statemts,,
and that the projects should not be judged in detail on them.
Summary of possible projects in 28 responses Y and (Y)Project

Our comments re
IC Specification

1.

Investigate specialist/generalist differencesamong indexers and users of indexes.

IC varied enough insubject?

2.

Comparison of PRECIS and other indexing methods. Social sciences preferred:
document texts needed; ICenough subjects, especiallyfor monographs?

3.

Investigation of proposition that for agiven collection there is an optimum size ofdictionary.

4. Work on bibliographic data base management
techniques.

Citations of interest,

5.

Test of an information retrieval system based on Multidisciplinary
an 'anomalous state of knowledge' hypothesis.
document set needed andexhaustive relevancejudgements.

6.

Research on nature, use and value of document
citation clusters.

Citations needed

7.

Study of file organisation techniques for large
document sets.

IC large enough?

- 37

8, Study of various automatic/manual indexing
mixtures.
9.

Analysis of statistical characteristics ofprofiles and relevance assessments.

Range of alternative
reguest sets (inc. SDI)
needed.

10. Application of fuzzy set theory to
information retrieval.

IC large enough?

11. Application of graph-theoretic information
theory.

TC large enough?

12. Study of library circulation data and theiruses.

IC no informationof this kind.

13. Identification of search technigues
genuinely suited to on-line retrieval.
14. Psycholinguistic study of acceptability ofpresentation of search output.
15. Assessment of text compression technigues in
on-line retrieval, in relation to special
hardware.

Would like data soon.

16. Hardware evaluation for on-line retrieval.

Would like data soon.

17. Study of effects of different key sets inretrieval.
18. Research on use of long, highly structured
gueries for text searching.

Full texts needed.

19. Exploitation of term associations ininteractive retrieval.
20. Study of efficient document clustering
technigues and of the relations between
document and term clustering.
21. Research on term dependency.
22. Identification of good index terms througha study of their predictors.

IC enough requests?

23. Development of retrieval system testing
methodology.

Much actual searchdata is needed.

24. Analysis of real value of Boolean reguest
structures.

- 38 -

25. Research on atuomatic feedback techniques
involving query expansion.
66. Investigation of 'aboutness' and the search
process.

Social sciences
preferred.

27. Development of procedures for exploiting
the IC in teaching subject retrieval.
28. Work on indexing languages specially designed
for automated searching.

in addition
1

mixed response lists possible projects on
the intermediate lexicon, bibliographic couplingversus subject document classing/ and term
relations; but these are very tentative andare therefore not considered further.

We have categorised the projects in various ways so as to give someidea of the scale and type of the research effort involved, in relation
to the 'ideal' collection specification. The table below lists theresults. We again emphasise that this categorisation should not be
regarded as wholly accurate, since it in some cases depends on inference
from the actilal information supplied. In section A of the table projects
are grouped by scale, and by whether their requirements in terms ofquantity and kind of data could be met by the 'ideal' collection as
specified. In B they are characterised according to whether they would
use the collection as it stands or extend it. In C by size in terms ofstaff and time. In D by status, and in E by the type of computing
environment required. Finally, in section F, the projects are grouped
according to whether they are, in our view, basic or general information
retrieval research projects, or are applied or specific.
Categorisation of possible projects (by (KSJ, with some inference)
A. Data requirements(subject to the comments above)

No. projects

1. Extensive scale (i.e. size rather than richness)25

2. Moderate scale

3

Requirements in scale and content;
Could be met by IC as specified

14

Could probably be sufficiently met by the IC

10

Doubtful if could be met

3

Could not be met

1

(28)

(28)

- 39 -Use
1. Would use IC primarily as it stands
2. Would extend IC through new indexing or new requests
n/a
C.

11
16
1

(28)

1
12
5
3
6
1

(28)

Size of possible projects
Time
1. Short, 1 year
2. Medium, 2 years
3. Long, 3 years•?

not indicated
n/a
Staff
1. Small, 1-2
2. Medium, 3-4
3. Largeo
not indicated
n/a

16
4
1
6
1

(28)

18
9
1

(28)

9
18
1

(28)

13
13
2

(28)

Status
1. Fairly definite (irrespective of whether,administratively, could start now)
2. Preliminary work or pilot study needed, or tentativen/aMachine environment
1. Would need IC on-line
2. Would not need on-line (though might be useful)
n/a

F

*

Character (KSJ's interpretation)
1. More basic, or general, research
2. More applied, or specific researchn/a- 40 -

From the information summarised in these tables we obtain thefollowing picture of the 28 projects.
a)

b)

c)
d)

e)
f)

Nearly all of them require large scale data.
The scale andcontent of the data required by 14 of the 28 could be met by the
specified 'ideal* collection, and the requirements of another 10
could probaly be satisfied in practice; only a few could probably
not, and only 1 certainly not.
16 of the projects would develop the collection further in indexing
or searching, largely for comparison with the information alreadyprovided. It is worth noticing that many of these projects would
include searching for new requests, for which the collection,
contrary to some views of it as unacceptably static, is deemed
acceptable.
many of the projects are middling in size: 2 years and 2 staff
respectively are the favourite choices.
more than half of the projects, 18,are fairly definite; some of theremainder are tentative and some depend explicitly on preliminary
or pilot studies.
9 of the projects depend on using the 'ideal' collection on-line, andsome of the others would probably find such use convenient.
the projects divide evenly by their research character, basic or
applied. Many of them are of a quite concrete character relevant
to operational systems in some degree, and there are very few whichmight be described as quite remote from such systems.

Overall, the picture presented by the research project replies isa fairly solid one. The response rate from active research workers wasquite high (some of those to whom questionnaires were sent being nolonger active): and the number of projects involved would represent a
substantial proportion of the total research effort being conducted in
information science in this country. The projects are on the whole fairly
concrete and fairly moderate ones which if successfully conducted would
bear on operational systems, and in particular on modern on-line systems.
At the same time they generally call for data on a scale and of a kind
not currently available for test purposes. Whether much of the research
is of a desirable type, and whether the data required could be provided
other than through the 'ideal' collection, are points considered inPart C of this Report.
It is quite improper for us to attempt a detailed evaluation of thequality of the projects submitted: indeed it must be emphasised that thecovering letter accompanying the questionnaire stated explicitly that
there could be no commitment to any projects outlined either from those
supplying them or from BLR&DD as a grant-giving body. The questionnaire
did not call for great detail, and the projects outlined should not be
evaluated for merit as if they were regular proposals; it should also beborne in mind that the projects which could not be conducted for, say,two years, since if the 'ideal' collection was to be built it would takesome time to set up.

41 -2 . Teaching activitiesa)generalThe questionnaire for teaching establishments was very simple, (seeAppendix 9 ) , and was designed only to discover whether these have any
interest in the 'ideal' collection, and if so what specific requirements
would have to be met. The table below lists the establishments approached,
and their responses.

Place

Reply

Aberdeen
Robert Gordon's Instituteof Technology
Aberystwyth
College of Librarianship Wales
BelfastQueen's University
Birmingham
City of Birmingham Polytechnic
Brighton
Brighton Polytechnic
Glasgow
University of Strathclyde
Leeds
Leeds Polytechnic
Liverpool
Liverpool Polytechnic
LondonEaling TechnicalLondonPolytechnic of North London
LondonUniversity College London
LoughboroughLoughborough Technical College
LoughboroughLoughborough University
Manchester
Manchester Polytechnic
Newcastle upon Tyne
Newcastle upon Tyne University
Sheffield
University of Sheffieldtotal Y = 8- = 9(Y = response- = no response)

Y
Y

Y
Y

(but teaching interests inpart covered by research
project)YYYY(plus University College London)

- 42 For those establishments responding positively the table below
indicates expressed needs, and comments on them in relation to the'ideal1 collection specification. The numbers of students involved
are added for information.
Requirements of teaching establishments in responses Y
Establishment

Need

Comments re
IC Specification

Aberystwyth

1 large collection as goodas ON-TAP

enough relevance
information?

Belfast1 large collection e.g. CAB
1 large collection MARC
non-specialised subject (soft)OK
not in IC
OK

Qlasgow

small collections including
e.g. UDC, also non-biblio.

mostly OK but UDC?,
non-bibliographic?

Leeds

small collections

OK

Loughborough U.

several collections

OK

Manchester

non-specialised subject
1 large file on-lineOKOK

2 large files

would need extendedsocial science otherset

1 large file on-line

OK

Newcastle

Sheffield
Numbers of students
Large = 100+

undergraduate
postgraduate

Aberystwyth, Manchester
Aberystwyth

Medium = 50-100

undergraduate
postgraduate

Glasgow, Leeds, Loughborough U, Newcastle
Glasgow, Leeds, Loughborough U, Manchester,
Sheffield.

Small = -50

undergraduate
postgraduate

BelfastBelfastIt is to be regretted that the response rate for this Questionnaire
was not better. The main point to be made about the replies are that ingeneral the 'ideal' collection as specified would meet expressed needs,
the main reservations being on the numbers of subjects covered and theprovision of MARC records. The establishments responding process
significant numbers of students, so the collection could make a valuable
contribution to teaching, particularly if it could be set up on-line.

- 43 b)on-line education

The point just made was investigated through a specific questionnaire,the second in Appendix 9. This was sent to participants in a British
Library-sponsored Workshop, Those from educational establishments weregrouped by establishment, though a separate questionnaire was sent to
the organiser, Dr. Keenan, and at British Library's sugqestion toProfessor Vickery. The total educational questionnaires sent out was
thus 12 (non-educational participants being sent the questionnaire mainly
as a matter of courtesy); 10 responses were obtained. The table below
lists establishments and responses, and analyses the positive responses
by requirements and computing facilities.
On-line education questionnaire
Place

Reply

Aberystwvth - CLW
Belfast - OU
Birmingham P
Brighton P
London -PNL
UCL
CU (= Vickery)
Loughborough U
KeenanManchester P
Newcastle P
Sheffield U
For responses Y
Interested in the IC

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
- yes

no

Aberystwyth, Belfast, Birmingham,
London UCL, London CU, Loughborough U,
Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield
London PNLSpecial facilities required for on-line teachingyes
Aberystwythcomprehensive index and search options
Belfastseveral subjects
Loughborough U
several collections
Newcastle
several subjects
Sheffield
several subjects, command language
compatibility
London PNL: experience of operational systems
noBirmingham, London UCL, London CU, Manchester

Would/do use or prefer remote computer
Aberystwyth, Sheffield, London PNL, Loughborouqh U
Would/do use or prefer local computer
Belfast, Birmingham, London UCL, London CU,
Manchester, Newcastle
The response rate here was good. It was very generally thought thatthe 'ideal' collection would be of use, the main reservation being the ranqe
of subjects. It is worth noticing that there is a bias towards the use of
local computers, suggesting a need for a portable on-line search package,
which might well be of use for some research projects as well.