Law Librarian Blog

Should LexisNexis and Thomson West Be Worried About the Economy's Turbulence? Results of the LLB Poll

Faced with substantial budget cuts to law library collections and legal research policy changes, LLB launched an informal poll on April 13th [background] looking into what impact the current economy may have on LexisNexis and Thomson West print products and online legal research services and whether any impact would having lasting consequences. The results are now in and note the conflicted situation we are in. On the one hand, participants see a permanent shift to free and low cost online legal research services, presumably for primary legal materials. On the other hand, reliance on LexisNexis and West online services for secondary materials may trend upward, but at the expense of libraries canceling LexisNexis and West print title continuations that are duplicated online.

Is it too far-fetched to contemplate that their duopolistic pricing practices may end LexisNexis' and Westlaw's dominance of the market for online primary legal materials someday? Considering the content-rich, and better designed products offered by BNA and CCH in their web-based services, will libraries eliminate from their plans LexisNexis and West online secondary legal materials covered by BNA and CCH someday? Will legal publishers like BNA, CCH and Aspen-Loislaw see this as an opportunity to expand their online offerings into subject areas they may once thought they could not be competitive? Expand by offering competitive fundamental research tools like comprehensive and reliable online citation indexes for example?

Thanks to everyone who participated in this informal poll. While utterly unscientific, the results are thought-provoking. Maybe we are living in interesting times. [JH]

Will the current economic situtaion be "good" for free and low cost online legal research services -- do you see or expect to see patrons use them more frequently than in the past?

If yes, will the trend in usage be temporary or permanent once the economy improves -- should LexisNexis and Westlaw be worried?

Should LexisNexis and Thomson West be worried about the cancellation of print titles because many of their regularly updated titles are duplicated in their online services?

I work in [type of law library]

Should LexisNexis and Thomson West Be Worried About the Economy's Turbulence?

BetaNews is reporting that 96 percent of participants in the latest Future of Open Source 2009 Survey said they think the economy's turbulence is "good" for open source. According to the report, open source software will be "most disruptive" over the next five years to IT sectors that include databases and operating systems. When asked to identify the sector most susceptible to disruption, 52% of respondents pointed to databases, 36% to OS, 28% to business intelligence, and 22% to Web content management.

Beyond Lexis & Westlaw. While the IT sector survey did't include online legal research, we have to wonder whether the current economic climate will be "good" for free and low cost legal research services. Previously LLB reported on academic law libraries placing more emphasis on this sector by publishing guides that focus on alternatives to LexisNexis and Westlaw for online legal research. See the excellent work produced by Georgetown and UCLA, for example.

An LLB poll conducted in September of last year found that the vast majority of law librarians neither use nor provide training in the use of some free services, namely PreCYdent, PLoL and/or AltLaw. The results, of course, may have more to say about the perceived quality of these services and the low-cost plans offered by LexisNexis and Westlaw to law schools. But the ABA Journal's summary of the 2008 Legal Technology Survey Report did report that the number of lawyers performing free online legal research has overtaken the number using fee-based services for the first time. (89% used free online legal research while 87% used fee-based research services) and that trend may increase because of the economics on online legal research.

LLB's recent informal poll on the financial situation law libraries are finding themselves in because of the dismal state of the US economy found that the brunt of budget cuts will be library collections. 82% of the respondents who are facing or expecting to face budget reducations reported that library collections will be "hardest hit" area of library operations. One assumes, rightly I believe, that print materials are more likely to face the axe than online resources but certainly in some libraries expensive online resources will not be exempt from cancellations, cutbacks in negotiated plans, or shifts to low cost or free online legal services as a matter of institutional research policy. See, e.g., Large Law Firm Sets New Online Research Policy: Use Loislaw First.

Faced with substantial budget cuts to library collections and legal research policy changes, we think it timely to ask if law librarians are seeing a shift to free and low cost legal research services at the expense of Lexis and Westlaw use. So will the current economic situation be "good" for free and low cost online legal research services -- do you see or expect to see patrons use them more frequently than in the past? And if so, will it be temporary or permanent once the economy improves -- should LexisNexis and Westlaw be worried?

Finally with substantial annual price increases for continuations in print and substantially less for online legal services, a related question: should LexisNexis and West be worried about the cancellation of print titles because many of their regularly updated print titles are duplicated in their online services.

Thanks in advance for taking a moment to participate in our poll. [JH]

Is the Economy's Turbulence "Good" for Free and Low Cost Online Legal Research Services
and "Bad" for LexisNexis and Thomson West Print Continuation Renewals?

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

Do Law Librarians Twitter? Results of the LLB Poll

Prompted by a story about Twitter use in law schools and academic law libraries, LLB launched an informal poll earlier this month to estimate Twitter use as a web communications medium by law librarians for library-related and personal reasons. The results, displayed below, are now in. Most law librarians who participated in the poll do not use Twitter for law library-related activities and have no plans on doing so.

I wonder if the lack of interest in Twitter for library-related work will be permanent. Upon reflection, I think I should have added some age-related questions: age groups for those who Twitter and age groups for patron populations. As more young law librarians enter the field and more Google generation patrons enter the practice of law will Twittering for work-related communications increase?

My personal opinion is that the use (or the perceived use) of RSS feeds by patrons trumps Twitter and the job at hand for law librarians is to identify and communicate to library patrons helpful feeds including, I guess, Twitter sources instead of alerting patrons to news and developments in 140 characters or less. For law library/librarian communications, I find Twitter to be a harmless web communications sideshow. Perhaps that's all Twitter was intended to be. But see Twitter, the Most Important Website Since Google? Then again I just might be suffering from the too-much-social-media syndrome. (Note to readers who have "befriended" me on Facebook (or is it MySpace?): sorry for not replying back.)

Readers suggested additional questions for this poll, including (1) listing reasons why one has never used Twitter and (2) asking if one tried Twitter and then stopped, and if so (a) how long did one use Twitter before stopping and (b) why did one stop. All excellent questions and I invite readers to respond to them by commenting to this post.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to participate. [JH]

Do You Twitter?

Online Surveys & Market Research

Yesterday LLB reported on the use of Twitter by law schools and law libraries to communicate with their communities. I thought it might be interesting to follow up on the story with a brief poll covering all law libraries. I hope you can take a minute or two to participate. Thanks. [JH]

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

Which Are the Highest Quality Legal Journals?

To find out, Brian Leiter (Chicago) is running a poll. The poll ends March 18, 2009 so the results are almost final. [JH]

Tough Times Ahead for Law Library Budgets

On January 26th we launched a little poll on the financial situation law libraries are finding themselves in because of the dismal state of the US economy. See Is It Time for a Law Library Bailout? I would like to thank the 220-plus participants and publish the results for your review.

The situation is grim. Only 11% responded that no budget cut was expected while 44% expected budget cuts this and next fiscal year. 31% have been informed or expect a 7-10% budget cut and an alarming 24% report that their budget cut will be more than 10%. Such a large percentage cutback, whether in one or two fiscal years, is going to be extremely disruptive to library operations and services.

What area will be hardest hit? Collections according to 82% of the responses. Vendors and library patrons take note because 82% of the poll's respondents work in academic or law firm libraries, generally the most heavily used libraries and the ones that spend the most on library materials each year. [JH]

Have you been informed or do you expect a budget cut in [fiscal year]

If you have or expect to have budget cut(s) this or next year or both, how much do you expect the cut will total over your last fiscal year's budget?

What area will be hardest hit in cutbacks?

I work in [law library type]

Is It Time for a Law Library Bailout?

We'll leave it to AALL (or LexisNexis or Thomson West) to do a proper survey of the financial situation of law libraries but until then, please take this little unscientific LLB poll which is open to all, not just library financial managers. Feel free to add your comments about the financial circumstances of your library or law libraries generally to this post. See also LLB's earlier post, Budgetary Woes Return to Law Schools and Their Law Libraries. [JH]

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

WSJ's Readers' Choice for Law Blog Newsmaker of 2008

Eliot Spitzer is leading in the WSJ Law Blog reader poll but Patrick Fitzgerald isn't far behind. Check it out. [JH]

Results from the Official Leiter's Law School Reports Presidential Poll

In a little bit of blog fun, Brian Leiter (Chicago) launched a poll yesterday asking "Who would you really like to see elected President of the US? Top three vote-getters are Barack Obama (28%), Judge Richard Posner (12%) and Stephan Colbert (9%). Check out The Official Leiter's Law School Reports Presidential Poll (poll still open!) [JH]

Global Presidential Poll

What if the world voted for America's next president tomorrow? Some people say it should be able to since the president's decisions often greatly impact citizens of other nations. Well, Reader's Digest conducted a poll in 17 countries (including the U.S.) to find out whom their citizens would vote for and why. Read the article to find out who won. (Hint: he's spent time living overseas. I know, I know. Not much of a hint because both McCain and Obama have lived overseas, although at different times in their lives and under different circumstances.) Also, the article's author---Carl Cannon---was recently interviewed on WNYC radio's The Leonard Lopate Show. Click here to listen. And please remember to vote tomorrow unless you've cast your ballot in advance. [RLS]

Who Won Last Night's VP Debate?

We probably should wait until fact-check reports analyze last night's debate, but what the heck. [JH]

Online Surveys & Market Research

29 Percent of Librarians Dissatisfied with Non-Librarian Decisions, Very Dissatisfied

29% of the respondents to LLB's recent poll "strongly disagree" with the statement "I am satisfied with management's recent decisions regarding my library" (where management decisions means decisions that impact library operations and budgets made by executives and administrators who are not librarians). That's more than the combined total who "agree" or "strongly agree" with the statement (25%). If we add responses for "disagree," 60% of librarians are dissatisfied with recent decisions made by non-librarians. 15% are ambivalent, not exactly a vote of confidence.

The poll will remain open until September 4th so there is still time to register your opinion here. The results so far (150-plus responses) sends a pretty clear message: rely on the professional judgment of librarians. It's possible that executives just need to communicate their library-related decisions better, but in my opinion, that's not the likely reason for librarian dissatification. [JH]

A Kierkegaardian Leap of Faith in Social Media: Does a Critical Remark About Opinions Expressed By a Commenter or Blogger On Another Blog Constitute Bullying?

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

In the context of the threatened AALS annual meeting boycott [LLB post: The Proposed AALS Meeting Boycott: Much Ado About Something, But What?], a comment to a Legal Ethics Forum post by Anita Bernstein appeared as follows:

For those who teach in law school, slightly O/T: When you are choosing casebooks for your courses, do you take into account the ideology of the editors, bearing in mind that you're sending revenue their way? When I mentioned this penchant of mine, a sales rep for one of the Big Three told me that as far as she can tell, only women share it.

That gave rise to a PrawfsBlawg post, Boycotts at the Retail Level: Of Casebook Selection and Ideology, by Paul Horwitz:

I find this comment fascinating.  I assume that Prof. Bernstein is not simply suggesting that, when considering casebooks, she keeps in mind whether or not she disagrees with the regnant ideology of the casebook itself; I assume she means that she also considers whether or not she wants to subsidize individuals whose ideologies she disagrees with, somewhat (although I assume far from completely) separately from any consideration of whether she likes the casebook itself.  (She's welcome to correct me if she wishes...)

Do others share this approach?  Do you think her slim anecdotal suggestion that such activity is more prevalent among women is accurate, and if so why?  And while I assume that an academic has the raw power to make such a decision, is it a sound academic decision?  .. is it, as it were, an action that is ultra vires our role as academics?

I respectfully disagree with the idea that one should refuse to select a casebook on the basis that one doesn't want to enrich someone with what one considers a disagreeable ideology, although I suppose every such principle has its "can't-help" limits. ... But I am less interested in airing my own views than in sounding out what others do and think, and whether you think Prof. Bernstein's brief observation that women academics are more likely to do so is accurate and why.

Followed by a number of comments to the PrawfsBlawg post including one by someone who may or may not be Orin Kerr:

[T]he idea of picking course materials based on a wish to help fund people who share one's ideological views is new to me. It's hard to imagine why women would adopt this view more than men. Maybe the "personal is political" notion is more widely embraced among feminists who are more likely to be women than men, such that the choice of who should receive $$$ for casebooks becomes a political choice? I don't know.

Social Media in Action. As the issue-at-hand evaporated in the mist of the short-term memory that is social media, the Horwitz post led to a "big debate/kerfuffle/brouhaha brewing in the legal blogosphere" over whether re-posting someone’s personally identifiable comment made on another blog to your own blog post without first notifying the author and giving them notice and opportunity to respond, constitutes bullying in the blogosphere. See norms and normativity: what constitutes bullying on the internet? (emphasis added) NB: the commenter known as Anita Bernstein did not provide a link to an email account or web destination in the Legal Ethics Forum comment. The controversy started with this comment to the Horwitz post:

Paul, if you haven't already, I think that out of fairness you need to make Anita Bernstein aware that you are over here, using her name and soliciting comments about a comment she made at another blog. I know she is one of the bloggers at the Legal Ethics Forum but it wasn't her post that you linked to, so there is no reason to believe she has seen a track back that would point her here.  [Commenter's name withheld to protect the innocent]

Followed up by Horwitz quickly commenting to his own post in response to the above (got to love social media):

I appreciate the suggestion. Rest assured that before posting, I contacted Prof. Bernstein to 1) confirm that it was indeed her posting (I didn't want to simply assume it was because her name was attached to it), 2) let her know I was interested in posting about the comment and something of the tenor of my post, and 3) seek her permission to do so and to use her name. Her very kind response indicated that she believes comments posted in the blogosphere are fair game for comment elsewhere, and I think she is right about that; this doesn't obviate the value of undertaking step number 1, but it does suggest that she didn't believe steps 2 or 3 were strictly necessary. But I meant the post in a spirit of friendly and open inquiry, not hostility, although I indicated in my post (and to her) that I tend to disagree with the approach her comment suggested; I certainly wanted it to be about the subject of the post and not the personalities involved. And so, out of politeness and an abundance of caution, I contacted her well before posting and let her know when I would be posting. I trust that satisfies your perfectly valid concerns -- and would love to hear what you think about the questions raised in the post itself.

Kudos to Dave Hoffman for asking the question outright: Does mentioning another commenter by name and attributing to them a publicly made argument on another blog forum constitute bullying? Follow the comment trail for his Bullying post on Concurring Opinions. On the issue, chime in by taking our Hoffman-inspired poll, above right. Yes, it is Kierkegaardian in it's Either/Or choices but you can take a leap of faith in social media by adding your comments to this post.

Opportunity to Respond and Author Attribution. This second issue does not appear to be whether comment author attribution can be falsified although it certainly can be (and will remain easy to do until OpenID is more widely accepted). So can blog post authorship albeit that's harder to do. Since I am not criticizing any of the posts or comments, I guess I'm safe from the bullying charge. I also haven't contacted any of the alleged authors I am quoting because, well, it's social media!

Trackbacks: Another Issue Embedded in the Opportunity to Respond. Trackbacks, mentioned in the "make aware" comment to the Horwitz post, are not automatically generated. They are used at the discretion of the blogger to ping a post on another blog. This practice usually falls in the "life's too short" category for me but I have pinged Dave Hoffman's post because it inspired the first above-displayed poll. Take our second poll, Should bloggers send trackbacks when they criticize something said in someone else's post? and add your comments about it to this post. All comments, by the way, are moderated to avoid automatic publication of comment spam.

Ideologically Inclined Course Materials Selection. More interesting to me is the original issue, "de-gendered." What do you think? Take the LLB poll at Sending Income to Course Book Authors Who Don't Share Your Ideological Predisposition. [JH]

Sending Income to Course Book Authors Who Don't Share Your Ideological Predisposition

Should one take into account the ideology of authors and editors when choosing course books "bearing in mind that you're sending revenue their way?" See Boycotts at the Retail Level: Of Casebook Selection and Ideology. Of course this issue cuts both ways -- selecting course materials and the income that generates to like-minded authors and not selecting course materials by authors whose ideological bent you find disagreeable. Feel free to add your comments.

Online Surveys & Market Research

Ideology in Legal Research Instruction. One might think that ideology lies only in the realm of legal doctrine for casebooks, monographs, etc., but it also appears in the selection of titles for legal research instruction. I, for one, will not select titles that follow the "toolbox" approach to legal research (eg "this is a digest, this is how you use it") because I prefer to teach legal research following principles of access points and routes that encompass all publishing formats simultanously. Those principles have numerous ideological implications that need not be argued in this post; let's just call it "making law students think like law librarians." Armstrong & Knott's Where the Law Is: An Introduction to Advanced Legal Research (2d ed., 2006) is the only publication that comes close to meeting my objectives (not that the authors have to meet my objectives!). I might, however, reconsider the matter if someone would revise and update Effective Legal Research, still the best damn, but unfortunately 30-years old, "toolbox" textbook.

Note to Armstrong and Knott: Delete "advanced" in the subtitle for the next edition of your book. 1L legal writing instructors might not be scared away from using it as a required (or even optional) text. Your book's use would be the greatest contribution to improving 1L research and writing programs in living memory. [JH]

LLB Poll: Are you satisfied with management's recent decisions regarding your library?

AmLaw's recent survey of firm law librarians included a question we thought would make an interesting survey open to all librarians. By "management decisions", we are referring to decisions that impact library operations and budgets made by executives and administrators who are not librarians.

I may follow up with a more detailed survey in the future so please feel free to add comments to this post to explain your response.

Online Surveys & Market Research

Results from AmLaw's law firm librarian survey here. [JH]

Do Senior Librarians Have a Moral Obligation to Retire?

The issue was presented on Brian Leiter's (Chicago) Philosophy Blog at Do Senior Faculty Have an Obligation to Retire at Some Point?, "Beneficial Retirement" of Senior Philosophers and The Brewing Economic Meltdown and the Philosophy Profession where Leiter writes

Students and especially job seekers, I fear, need to be prepared for weak job markets this year and next, if not longer... Not only will state universities likely be doing less hiring, but the catastrophic June in the stock markets means that a lot of faculty who might have been thinking about retirement in the coming year are going to postpone given the huge losses most will have suffered.

My crystal ball says job opportunities for young librarians wouldn't be all that great in either the public or private sector, so should senior librarians eligible for retirement make room for younger ones during a weak job market? Check out Leiter's review of arguments at Inside Higher Ed and take our LLB poll which is based on them.

If you select yes/no for a reason not listed as an option, feel free to explain in a comment to this post.[JH]

Online Surveys & Market Research

LLB Poll: Why Go to AALL's Annual Meeting

Opinion Polls & Market Research

LLB Poll: First Things First This Summer

Opinion Polls & Market Research

2008 Essential Reference Tools Surveys

Check out Diane Kovacs' on-going reference tool surveys, including surveys for Law and Government Documents, both hosted by SurveyMonkey. Kovacs is author of The Virtual Reference Handbook (2007)(Details below the fold). [JH]

The Virtual Reference Handbook
Interview and Information Delivery Techniques for the Chat and E-Mail Environment
by Diane K. Kovacs

List Price: $65.00
150 pp
Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2007
ISBN: 9781555705985

Book Description: IM, e-mail, and chat reference is already here, but have you adapted your traditional reference interview and information provision skills to these new formats? ACRL online trainer and popular Internet workshop leader Diane Kovacs has assembled this handbook to help reference librarians develop the communication skills and resources they need to work effectively in the virtual reference environment. The handbook shows how to adapt traditional face-to-face reference interview skills to the virtual interview—and how to interpret and use new cues (chat slang, IM shorthand, emoticons, etc.) to better serve your users. For both chat and e-mail transactions, Kovacs outlines strategies for analyzing the question, conducting the interview, developing a search strategy, and delivering sources. There is guidance for selecting the best information format for users and delivering content in a timely and valuable manner. This practical guide offers everything reference librarians need to move from the face-to-face to virtual transaction with ease.

LLB Poll: Extra Pair of Hands

Opinion Polls & Market Research