The National Site Licensing of Electronic Resources: An Institutional Perspective

• Main Author: Xiaohua Zhu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: National Taiwan University 2011-06-01
• Series: Journal of Library and Information Studies
• Subjects: electronic resources acquisition; organizational change; institutional theory; information policy
• Online Access: https://jlis.lis.ntu.edu.tw/files/journal/j32-3.pdf

While academic libraries in most countries are struggling to negotiate with publishers and vendors individually or collaboratively via consortia, a few countries have experimented with a different model, national site licensing (NSL). Because NSL often involves government and large-scale collaboration, it has the potential to solve many problems in the complex licensing world. However, not many nations have adopted it. This study uses historical research approach and the comparative case study research method to explore the seemingly low level of adoption. The cases include the Canadian National Site Licensing Project (CNSLP), the United Kingdom's National Electronic Site Licensing Initiative (NESLI), and the United States, which has not adopted NSL. The theoretical framework guiding the research design and data collection is W. Richard Scott's institutional theory, which utilizes three supporting pillars—regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive—to analyze institutional processes. In this study, the regulative pillar and the normative pillar of NSL adoption—an institutional construction and change—are examined. Data were collected from monographs, research articles, government documents, and relevant websites. Based on the analysis of these cases, a preliminary model is proposed for the adoption of NSL. The factors that support a country's adoption of NSL include the need for new institutions, a centralized educational policy-making system and funding system, supportive political trends, and the tradition of cooperation. The factors that may prevent a country from adopting NSL include decentralized educational policy and funding, diversity and the large number of institutions, the concern for the “Big Deal,” and the concern for monopoly.