Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Don't Burn the Books, Read Them!

  • Amanda Watson
Abstract

Why do we still have books? To answer this question with views based not on the market trend, nor on the popular feeling that print is outdated and irrelevant, but on the American Bar Association's stated mission of Law Libraries to provide resources that enable legal education,1 this article reviews the potential benefits and determents of different types of legal sources using both print and online formats and discusses whether external pressures should outweigh these factors dependent on the audience.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Don't Burn the Books, Read Them!
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Don't Burn the Books, Read Them!
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Don't Burn the Books, Read Them!
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
**

© Amanda Watson 2018. The author is Director, John M. O'Quinn Law Library and Assistant Professor, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, Texas.

Footnotes
References
Hide All

2 Joseph Brodsky, Independent on Sunday, May 19, 1991. (Spoken on acceptance of US poet laureateship, Washington DC.)

3 Report from ALLStar Benchmarking (on file with author). See http://www.nellco.org/page/allstar.

4 University of Texas, Tarlton Law Library/The Joseph D. Jamail Center for Legal Research at http://catalog.utexas.edu/general-information/libraries-and-other-academic-resources/legal-research-tarlton-law-library/.

5 Report from ALLStar Benchmarking (on file with author). See http://www.nellco.org/page/allstar.

6 See, e.g., Gorham, Ursula & Jaeger, Paul T., The Law School Library or the Library at the Law School? How Lessons from Other Types of Libraries Can Inform the Evolution of the Academic Law Library in the Digital Age, 109 Law Libr. J. 51, 52, 2017 Law Libr. J. 2, ¶ 2.

7 Ji, Sung Wook et al. , Print vs. Electronic Readings in College Courses: Cost-Efficiency and Perceived Learning, 21 J. High. Educ. 17, 17. (2014).

8 M. P. McQueen, The Bookless Library, Am. Law., July 2015, at 64.

9 Milles, James G., Legal Education in Crisis, and Why Libraries Are Doomed, 106 Law Libr. J. 507, 519, 2014 Law Libr. J. 28, ¶ 40.

10 Id. at 517, ¶ 34.

11 Baron, Naomi S. et al. , The Persistence of Print Among University Students: An Exploratory Study, 34 Telematics & Informatics 590, 590 (2017).

13 Id.

15 See, e.g., Appenzellar, Terry, “Online Information Retrieval for the Legal Profession70 Law Libr. J. 532 (1977).

17 Mead Data Central, 1984 Annual Report 24 (1985).

18 Id. at 25.

19 Reed Elsevier, 2008 Annual Report 16 (2009).

21 See, e.g., Bob Wharburton, Libraries Around the Country Under Budget Pressure, Libr. J., June 28, 2013, https://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/06/funding/libraries-around-the-country-under-budget-pressure.

22 Puacz, Jeanne Holba, Electronic vs. Print Reference Sources in Public Library Collections, 44 Reference Librarian 39, 50 (2005), quoting Niemeier, Kathy, The Medium Must Match the Message, 6 Ref. Librarian 217, 223 (2009).

23 See, e.g., Munro, Robert J. et al. , LEXIS vs. WESTLAW: An Analysis of Automated Education, 71 Law Libr. J. 471 (1978).

24 Section on Legal Educ. And Admissions to the Bar, Am. Bar Ass'n, ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools 2017-2018, at 39 (2017).

25 Mizrachi, Diane, Undergraduates’ Academic Reading Format Preferences and Behaviors, 41 J. Acad. Libr. 301, 302 (2015).

26 Daniel, David B. & Woody, William Douglas, E-textbooks at What Cost? Performance and Use of Electronic v. Print Texts, 62 Computers & Educ. 18, 18 (2013).

27 Porion, Alexandre et al. , The Impact of Paper-based Versus Computerized Presentation on Text Comprehension and Memorization, 54 Computers Hum. Behav. 569, 573 (2016).

28 Daniel, supra note 25, at 20.

29 Ji, supra note 6, at 23.

30 Mangen, Anne et al. , Reading Linear Texts on Paper Versus Computer Screen: Effects on Reading Comprehension, 58 Int'l J. Educ'l Res. 58, 65 (2013).

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 Morineau, Thierry et al. , The Emergence of the Contextual Role of the E-Book in Cognitive Processes Through an Ecological and Functional Analysis, 62 Int'l J. Human-Computer Stud. 329, 344 (2005).

34 Ibid at 337.

35 Lauterman, Tirza & Ackerman, Rakefat, Overcoming Screen Inferiority in Learning and Calibration, 35 Computers Hum. Behav. 455, 460 (2014).

36 Ibid. at 461.

37 Baron, supra note 10, at 596.

38 Lauterman, supra note 34, at 460.

39 Mizrachi, supra note 24, at 302.

40 Foasberg, Nancy M., Student Reading Practices in Print and Electronic Media, 75 C. & Res. Libr. 705, 719 (2014).

41 See, e.g., Norman, Elizabeth & Furnes, Bjarte, The Relationship Between Metacognitive Experiences and Learning: Is There a Difference Between Digital and Non-digital Study Media?, 54 Computers Hum. Behav. 301, 303 (2016).

42 Farinosi, Manuela et al. , Book or Screen, Pen or Keyboard? A Cross-cultural Sociological Analysis of Writing and reading Habits Basing on Germany, Italy and the UK, 33 Telematics & Informatics 410, 410 (2016).

43 Ibid. at 417.

44 Daniel, supra note 25, at 20.

45 Daniel, supra note 25, at 22.

46 Baron, supra note 10, at 598.

47 Ibid. at 596.

48 Farinosi, supra note 41, at 417.

49 Ibid.

50 Daniel, supra note 25, at 22.

51 Farinosi, supra note 41, at 418.

52 Mangen, supra note 29, at 61.

53 DeStefano, Diana & LeFevre, Jo-Anne, Cognitive Load in Hypertext Reading: A Review, 23 Computers Hum. Behav. 1616, 1617 (2007).

54 Mizrachi, supra note 24, at 304.

55 Baron, supra note 10, at 592.

56 Norman, supra note 40, at 304.

57 Ibid. at 307.

58 Ibid.

59 Farinosi, supra note 41, at 417.

60 Ibid.

61 Baron, supra note 10, at 598.

62 Ibid. at 601.

63 Mangen, supra note 29, at 62.

64 Porion, supra note 26, at 570.

65 Ji, supra note 6, at 17.

66 Baron, supra note 10, at 592.

67 Baron, supra note 10, at 599.

68 Ibid. at 592.

69 Harrington, William G., A Brief History of Computer-Assisted Legal Research, 77 Law Libr. J. 543, 544 (1985).

70 Marks, Taryn & Le, Avery, Increasing Article Findability Online: The Four Cs of Search Engine Optimization, 109 Law Libr. J. 83, 85, 2017 Law Libr. J. 4 at ¶ 7.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid. at 86 ¶ 11.

73 University of Houston Law Center Library Student Survey (on file with author).

74 Baron, supra note 10, at 597.

75 Ibid. at 598.

76 Cummings, Lee A. et al. , Comparing Electronic vs Print Book Preferences Between Students in the Social Sciences, the Arts and STEM, 32:4 Libr. Hi Tech News, 1, 4 (2015).

77 Ibid.

78 Ji, supra note 6, at 23.

79 Farinosi, supra note 41, at 418.

80 Baron, supra note 10, at 595.

81 Mizrachi, supra note 24, at 302.

82 Randtke, Wilhelmina & Fowler, Stacy, The Current State of E-Books in U.S. Law Libraries: A Survey, 108 Law Libr. J. 361, 363, 2016 Law Libr. J. 18 ¶ 23.

83 Ibid. at 363, Table 1.

84 Whiteman, Michael, Book Burning in the Twenty-First Century: ABA Standard 606 and the Future of Academic Law Libraries as the Smoke Clears, 106 Law Libr. J. 11, 20, 2014 Law Libr. J. 2 ¶ 30.

85 Runyon, Amanda M., The Effect of Economics and Electronic Resources on the Traditional Law Library Print Collection, 101 Law Libr. J. 177,185, 2009 Law Libr. J. 11 ¶ 24.

86 Aiken, Julian et al. , Not Your Parents’ Law Library: A Tale of Two Academic Law Libraries 16 Green Bag 2D 13, 15 (2012).

87 Randtke, supra note 81, at 370 23.

88 Ibid. at ¶ 32.

89 Ibid. at ¶ 34.

90 Baron, supra note 10, at 592.

91 Mizrachi, supra note 24, at 307.

92 Farinosi, supra note 41, at 417.

93 Chancellor, Renate, Getting It From the Source: What Librarians Think About Lawyer Search Behavior, 107 Law Libr. J. 287, 288, 2015 Law Libr. J. 12 ¶ 2.

94 Sutton, Stuart A., The Role of Attorney Mental Models of Law in Case Relevance Determinations: An Exploratory Analysis, 45 J. Am. Soc'y Info. Sci. 188, 192 (1994).

95 Chancellor, supra note 92, at 295 ¶ 22.

96 See, e.g., Dunn, Donald J., Why Legal Research Skills Declined, or When Two Rights Make a Wrong, 85 Law Libr. J. 49 (1993).

97 Randtke, supra note 81, at ¶ 61.

98 Mangen, supra note 29, at 66.

99 Marks, Taryn, John West and the Future of Legal Subscription Databases, 107 Law Libr. J. 377, 377, 2015 Law Libr. J. 18 ¶ 1.

100 Marks, supra note 69, at 84 ¶ 3.

101 Marks, supra note 98, at 384 ¶ 21.

102 McQueen, supra note 7, at 66.

103 Whiteman, supra note 83, at 26 ¶ 47.

104 Whiteman, supra note 83, at 29 ¶ 55.

105 Ibid.

106 PALMPrint, http://www.nellco.org/?page=palmprint. It is worth noting that in a recent casual poll of Texas Law Libraries, the majority of directors declined to investigate pooling resources in the University of Texas/Texas A&M Joint Library Facility. This was most commonly attributed to currently have the facility to store them. Amanda Watson, e-mail A&M/UT Joint Library Facility (on file with author).

107 Thomson Reuters, West Reporter Images, https://lawschool.westlaw.com/marketing/display/SO/18.

109 Randtke, supra note 81, at 377 ¶ 67.

110 Martin, Peter W., Possible Futures for the Legal Treatise in an Environment of Wikis, Blogs, and Myriad Online Primary Law Sources, 108 Law Libr. J., 7, 21, 2016 Law Libr. J. 1 ¶ 33.

111 Porion, supra note 26, at 570.

112 Pat Parker, Automated Retrieval System Affects Legal Research: Is the Browsing Collection a Thing of the Past?, 7 AALL Spectrum 24, 25 (April 2003). Bowker, Geoffrey C. & Starr, Susan Leigh, Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences 7 (2000).

113 National Associate of College Bookstores, Update: Electronic Book and eReader Device Report March 2011, http://www.nacs.org/LinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3DuIf2NoXApKQ%253D%26tabid%3D2471%26mid%3D3210.

114 See, e.g., University of Cincinnati Libraries, Law Student Guide to the Law Library, http://guides.libraries.uc.edu/c.php?g=222405&p=1474094.

115 Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791).

Many thanks to Dean Leonard Baynes for asking hard questions and always listening to the answers. Thanks also to my research librarian Robert Clark, my former teaching assistant and friend Jennifer Richards, and my editor and partner Elizabeth Bolles for constant help in all things.

** © Amanda Watson 2018. The author is Director, John M. O'Quinn Law Library and Assistant Professor, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, Texas.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Legal Information
  • ISSN: 0731-1265
  • EISSN: 2331-4117
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-legal-information
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×