by Joe Lee
Reference Library Services Specialist
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
JLee75@umbc.edu

Jasmine Shumaker, MLIS
Reference & Instruction Librarian
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
jshumake@umbc.edu

Abstract

HeinOnline is a legal research database much like NexisUni or Westlaw. HeinOnline is a commercial legal research database used for searching case law, law review articles, proceedings, government documents and more. The Albin O. Kuhn Library & Gallery (AOK), which is the heart of the research campus of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), which, at the time of writing this piece, subscribed to 446 databases, only one of which covered legal research. Though not a law library, AOK had been formerly using NexisUni from July 2017 to June 2023. The two authors, a faculty librarian and a library services specialist–decided to address this deficit by closely documenting the onboarding process of HeinOnline from trial to acquisition. At their institution, there has been little to no documentation recorded that outlined the necessary steps and checkpoints needed for a database trial. The Reference team noted that the previous database, NexisUni, was not only costly (especially at a university without a law program), but that the user interface and search functions could be improved. The authors recognized that, by closely documenting the process of offering a new database and measuring faculty and student engagement, they could establish the groundwork for standardizing database trials as well as provide insights for other librarians as they consider evaluating or adding new databases.

Literature Review

Marketing

A key theme throughout the literature was having a thorough, targeted marketing plan. This is highly dependent on the database that is being advertised. Additionally, consistent communication is critical for a successful trial, which starts in the Library with the faculty librarians. Once this has been initiated and approved, the librarians can push the trial to their relative subject areas. A trickle-down effect occurs when this information is successfully relayed to the other faculty members, which then carries over to the students and other campus affiliates who might be interested in that particular database.

J. J. Pionke, a newly minted health sciences librarian at Wichita State University, emphasized the importance of personal outreach rather than a generalized approach. Specifically mentioned in the case study (Pionke, 2015) is that consistent communication between librarians and members in their subject departments strengthened their personal relationships, leading to a more receptive outcome to feedback. Pionke notes, “The relationship building focused in part on the use of inclusionary language on the part of the health librarian […] [They were] careful to try and consistently use the ‘we’ language in order to communicate that she felt that she was a part of the health professions community” (Pionke, 2015, p. 168). Bolstering participation and maintaining relationships between campus community members leads to a more likely outcome of an effective trial.

Once the librarian has conducted an outreach initiative for their database trial, it is necessary to reflect and assess the outcome of the marketing strategy in addition to the trial overall. According to German and LeMire of Texas A&M University, “By consciously considering an outreach[…]purpose, goals, and outcomes, libraries can be sure that they are being intentional in their selection of assessment strategies” (German & LeMire, 2018, p. 68). In addition, our authors noted, “Identifying specific and measurable outreach outcomes is ideal, but fully assessing those outcomes is not always feasible depending on the structure and scale of the outreach […]” (p. 68). Although German’s and LeMire’s article focused mainly on their library’s annual Open House for students, their approach towards marketing, planning, and assessing the effectiveness of their outreach can be applicable to other Library-centered initiatives and projects. This was particularly helpful when thinking about the authors’ own methods of outreach and assessment long after the database trial had ended.

Key Players

The need for a strong, well-rounded team of library workers is consistent throughout the literature. Jackie Blanton-Watkins, Acquisitions & Licensing Librarian at Kennesaw State University, gives readers a glimpse of the collaborators in the Collection Development Unit and the Technical Services Unit needed for making decisions regarding various e-resources. “A consistent, defining feature of the department is a push for collaboration, and this willingness to work together to solve problems eased the challenges faced by a new librarian in a new position” (Blanton-Watkins, 2022, p. 5). Keeping this openness in partnership enables newcomers a space to voice their own perspectives and contribute to the process. As a result, a team culture is fostered and celebrated.

Similarly, Anjana H. Bhatt recounted her own experiences at Florida Gulf Coast University Library with e-trials in academic libraries by highlighting the advantages of delegating responsibilities and assigning multiple point-persons instead of burdening this process with a single task force: “The RRI group of librarians felt overburdened with multiple trials due to their existing workload. They depended on other librarians to conduct the trial and provide feedback, especially when the product was not in the area of their subject expertise” (p. 123). She then suggested “Show & Tell” sessions about the new e-resources to better communicate and disseminate information about the database trial to other librarians. This would ensure that everyone would stay informed and keep track of the trials as they progressed (Bhatt, 2015).

The literature consistently did not include reference librarians on their team of collaborators when disseminating information regarding database trials. Blanton-Watkins and Jacobs (2018) relayed the make-up of their team, which included an E-Resources Librarian, Strategic Marketing & Outreach Librarian, Liaison Coordinator, and Electronic Resources Assistants. Considering the purpose of having these individuals serve on a database trial team, the authors wondered what kept subject librarians from participating in the database trial process.

Steps to Take when Acquiring a Database Trial

In regards to establishing the length of a database trial, ample time is needed to garner usage of the database. It would be a disservice to our users if the Library did not take adequate time to test the database during its trial period and provide any proper feedback. A database trial “needs to be long enough that you can really test the product but should not drift on indefinitely. Four weeks is usually about right, with a review at the two-week stage to start your feedback gathering” (Street, 2010, p. 148).

In addition, the timing of when a trial begins should also be at the forefront, noting that ample usage from campus community members is crucial in the trial testing process. For instance, beginning a database trial in the summer months when the majority of faculty and students are away is not the wisest idea. Anjana Bhatt notes, “It is critical that the subject librarians provide a preferred trial period during which maximum attention from the Library faculty and extended faculty is ensured. This ground rule allows us to communicate a specific trial date to the vendor and build in at least one additional week for setting up and communicating trial details to the participants” (p. 122).

Database demonstrations are key to generating interest for an overall trial among various stakeholders on campus. Street (2010) recommends holding “an initial demonstration of the product for one or two interested parties to assess the content and functionality of the product including authority and currency of the materials and knowledge of the vendor contact” (p. 147).  Facilitation by expert advocates from the vendor allows demonstration attendees a space to have their questions/concerns addressed, as well as transparency regarding usage abilities. Street (2010) continues to reiterate, “It is also useful to ensure that the vendor contact is able to give a comprehensive and knowledgeable demonstration of the product without being too sales focused” (p. 147).

Soliciting feedback is critical in libraries, especially for programs, outreach, database trials, and any other service that is provided to community members. It allows librarians to gauge whether or not a program or service was successful, as well as considerations for improvement in the future. Budsize (2020) mentioned how useful feedback was in assessing graduate programs for the University Libraries at Texas A&M: “Initial feedback from graduate students suggested that the experiences were positive, and that feedback prompted the librarians to continue the program, despite being time and cost intensive…” (p. 148).

During a library’s database trial, soliciting feedback from the appropriate scholastic communities, departments, or centers is equally imperative. By doing this, the library positions itself in a place that welcomes input from the larger community, giving campus community members buy-in in the overall process. Receiving feedback and constructive criticism also contributes towards deciding if the library wishes to fully commit adding the e-resource to its database list. Ritterbush (2012) cites Christine Ryan, a fellow librarian and presenter at a different university library, as recognizing the importance and value of feedback for all parties involved: “Having this feedback can inform vendor’s efforts to improve their products. Trial evaluators might be pleased to know their feedback made a difference and could be more inclined to participate in future database trials” (p. 242). German and LeMire (2018) in particular noted in their publication that written feedback submitted on distributed forms, as well as “anecdotal feedback” were useful in their outreach program, specifically their annual Open House (p. 67).

When considering database trial runtimes, it is important to align the trial period with the campus’s academic calendar. This allows for optimal use of the trial and can help identify interested departments/disciplines. Bhatt (2015) and Ritterbush (2012) recommend to libraries, “[set] April deadline for e-trials during spring semester. This deadline is necessary to make sure we have enough time to process the purchase of new products before the financial year ends […] ​​No trials in December due to the holiday season and unavailability of extended faculty” (pp. 124-5). Allowing ample time to use the feedback around less busy times of the semester is crucial in giving the database trial a fair chance on campus.

Additionally, Bhatt lists factors that should be included in the feedback when running a database trial. She includes six suggestions to guide users when navigating the database: “Content relevancy; search mechanism, platform and navigation issues; special features or uniqueness; financial benefit; final recommendation with a positive yes or no; add trial feedback to the centralized unmet curricular needs list” (p. 125). These considerations are extremely crucial when gathering feedback because it helps librarians and other key players in the decision-making process on whether or not to move forward with subscribing to the database. A well-developed feedback form can also aid justifying the library’s decision on purchasing the database if there is any pushback, criticism, or skepticism in the decision-making process.

Case Study

Getting Started

Our involvement with this database trial began in April 2022, when a HeinOnline representative contacted another subject librarian in the Reference department. The librarian had previously advocated for taking on this database instead of another current legal database subscription and wanted to learn more about HeinOnline’s features. The faculty librarian quickly involved the rest of the Reference department in the conversation. Once we established there was broad interest amongst the subject librarians, we pounced at the offer from HeinOnline for a lunch-and-learn. This opportunity, which took place in June 2022, was perfect in allowing for access questions from the Reference team, along with price questions from our Head of Technical Services. After a debrief with the subject librarians, we decided to move the needle and proceed with a database trial, making the decision citing low usage and costly subscription fees for the current subscribed database. In addition, subject librarians noted that the current iteration of NexisUni was not intuitive for students and faculty. A number of faculty librarians also took issue with the search and filtering options for the database in particular. One social sciences subject librarian had the following to say about NexisUni:

“We found that many users were confused by the overwhelming amount of options available in the NexisUni interface. It was often difficult for them to create a successful search string, and the results list proved to be just as baffling to work with.”

Starting the trial

With the faculty librarian spearheading this project after getting positive feedback from her fellow librarians, the HeinOnline database trial began July 27th, 2022, and ran for six months. The team knew that because the trial started in the middle of summer, it would be hit-or-miss with how many community members became aware of the initiative. With that in mind, messaging was dispersed throughout campus, including a post to our internal social media platform, along with emails from subject librarians to specific departments who might find the database trial useful to instruction and research. Over 400 members of the community were reached via our outreach efforts, including 315 in the first two days of marketing.

In October of 2022, the Interlibrary Loan Specialist’s interest in legal research as an MLIS graduate student led her to partner with the faculty librarian and collaborate on this particular project. The Specialist wanted to focus on how libraries can provide legal resources not strictly just for pre-law students and faculty, but for campus affiliates at large as well. She previously had experience in her coursework, taking a class in her graduate program, “Introduction to Legal Research”. Because of this, the Specialist was more prepared with an arsenal of available resources librarians can provide to their campus communities seeking legal research. This proved to be vital as the team began brainstorming how they might highlight the benefits of the resource and suggest successful search strategies.

Marketing & Outreach

The authors considered the fact that UMBC, although an R1 institution that focuses heavily on scholarly research, does not have a JD granting program. However, they realized that many of the departments and disciplines encounter legal research, policy-making, landmark cases, and current events during their coursework and research. As such, the following departments and student groups were targeted for outreach in the hopes that they would provide valuable feedback on HeinOnline: Public Policy, Economics, Media & Communication Studies, Philosophy, Political Science, Pre-Law Society, the Graduate Student Association, the Pre-Med interest group, and the Pre-Dental interest group. Not to be forgotten, the authors utilized existing relationships held between subject librarians and their respective departments. The pair called upon their colleagues in the Reference department to aid in the promotion of the database trial, fully knowing that department students, faculty, and staff may be more open to receiving information coming from a familiar face. As Pionke (2015) notes in their article, it is crucial to create a sense of camaraderie and belonging in the community. By doing this, subject librarians have the ability to empower their departments, giving them a seat at the decision-making table.

To Pionke’s (2015) point, these efforts were managed via targeted emails addressed to specific key players (directors, chairs and their officers, student leaders, faculty, etc.) using language crafted towards their specific research interests and disciplines. Doing so created early awareness and interest in the database so that the users would test HeinOnline to the fullest extent possible. However, as mentioned previously, many of the departments that were solicited may not have been as familiar with HeinOnline as other groups. Therefore, the pair thought it best to create a tutorial video that briefly highlighted the basic features of the database, and how to get started on simple searches.

The video needed to be short and concise in a way that could be quickly watched, absorbed, and understood by the campus members to then take what they learned from it and test the database themselves. The Specialist thought it best to include a script and send it to the Reference faculty librarians for suggestions and feedback first before attaching it to the outreach emails and sending it out to the larger campus community. However, it also needed to be informative enough to guide new users through an unfamiliar layout.

The main features of HeinOnline, such as the case-law search, full-text law reviews, government documents, special collections; and the varying subject areas across disciplines that touch upon law and legal research (e.g., History, Psychology, Immigration Studies, Government and Politics, etc.) were shown in the video, along with basic search strategies. The 4 minute, 7 seconds video, recorded in WebEx, served as a tutorial that introduced HeinOnline for both faculty and students. It was shared widely through email and posted on the campus’ social media platform with a link to the WebEx video. Any updates published thereafter would also link to the original post, which contained the recording.

Feedback

In order to make an informed decision regarding a future subscription to HeinOnline, the team consulted with the E-Resources Librarian to establish some measures to consider. One suggestion made by the latter was the implementation of the E-Resource Trial Feedback Google Form. Newly created just for this project and now widely used for all trials, the feedback form was forwarded to relevant entities on campus. Questions ranged from the responders’ status and department, as well as questions specific to the database:  Was this resource easy to search and navigate? Did you find relevant content in this resource? How often do you think you would use this resource if the library subscribed to it? Would you recommend that the library subscribe to this resource? Because of budgeting restrictions, it is very likely the only way to acquire this e-resource is by dropping a subscription to an existing e-resource. Please name the existing resource to be dropped and describe your reasons for canceling that subscription in favor of acquiring this one.

The feedback forms were sent to a number of departments on campus, aimed at receiving multi-disciplinary responses. The Reference subject librarians distributed the forms via email to their respective subject liaisons, for a total of 10 departments: History (30 faculty); English (25 faculty); Modern Languages, Linguistics & Intercultural Communication (29 faculty); Women & Gender Studies (12 faculty); Public Policy (10 faculty); Economics (21 faculty), Political Science (17 faculty); Media & Communication Studies (16 faculty); Language Literacy & Culture (6 faculty); Global Studies (4 faculty); Asian Studies (28 faculty); and Africana Studies (13 faculty). We also sent the forms to university centers and student groups such as the Academic Success Center (9 faculty), and the Pre-Law Advising group (3 faculty). We received seven submissions in total over the span of three months. Positive and critical feedback was noted in the decision-making process. One positive feedback from a faculty member in the School of Public Policy reads:

“I primarily use Heinonline to access law review articles and other documents related to the law. Before this trial, I regularly located what appeared to be interesting papers to read or to assign to students, but could not easily download them to read in advance so that I could evaluate them. ILL is a fantastic resource, but it is tiring to have to submit to ILL every law review article I’d like to read. The trial to Heinonline has been wonderful to use!”

Another faculty in the Political Science department was a bit more critical of HeinOnline in their assessment of the resource:

“The database appears to have considerably fewer legal resources than NexisUni (or LexisNexis which we had until a few years ago). For example, I don’t appear to be able to search for briefs submitted to courts. Also, I have no access to decisions decided by foreign high courts. Both of these are available to some degree on NexisUni.”

Overall, the responses have been overwhelmingly positive, and the above response was the single outlier that favored NexisUni over HeinOnline. Furthermore, it should be noted that the authors were not privy to price negotiations. However, we were aware of the price difference between the two databases, and that replacing NexisUni with HeinOnline would be more cost-effective. The financial aspect ultimately helped to make this decision because the Library is working on a limited budget for database acquisition. Therefore, it made logical sense to replace NexisUni for a resource that still provided access while allowing us the possibility to subscribe to additional databases in the future. Additionally, our e-resources librarian pulled usage statistics for the titles with more than five retrievals in the 2021-2022 academic year. Interestingly enough, most of our NexisUni activity stemmed from users accessing transcripts of TV news programs, with retrievals totaling over 41,000 retrievals. On the other hand, users were only accessing titles to mostly older journals, with retrievals totaling a little over fifty (54 in all) during the 2021–2022 academic year. Taking these statistics into consideration, once again, it is difficult to justify keeping a database where the intended use of legal research was not at the forefront.

Databases can be tailored to a campus’s needs and a demonstration by the vendor representative was requested. This would provide community members with an overview of the scope and content of the database, some searching techniques, and an opportunity to ask questions regarding their own specific areas of interest.

Throughout the HeinOnline database trial, regular communication with the Hein representative provided monthly updates on usage, the essential statistic for documenting awareness of the database and its popularity. The authors noticed that usage of the database increased after the Specialist targeted outreach video was marketed to relevant centers, departments, and student groups. Usage statistics were also helpful in judging the success of the targeted outreach video. As illustrated by the statistics below, usage increased significantly after the video was made available, a clear sign of successful marketing. These statistics are not cumulative and clearly indicate an increase in usage each month, which suggests that the outreach efforts were not in vain.

Table 1: July-October 2022 HeinOnline Usage statistics:

Month	Hits	Articles	Page Views	Visits	Searches
2022-10	4898	585	758	331	50
2022-09	3810	372	832	261	91
2022-08	1000	84	167	80	34
2022-07	151	20	7	26	0
2022 Totals	9859	1061	1764	698	175

Table 2: November 2022 HeinOnline usage statistics:

Month	Hits	Articles	Page Views	Visits	Searches
2022-11	14884	1587	2604	1644	264

Table 3: December 2022 HeinOnline usage statistics:

Month	Hits	Articles	Page Views	Visits	Searches
2022-12	21528	2242	3822	2230	358

The pair knew they had to take advantage of this momentum with eyes on HeinOnline. They reached out to their HeinOnline representative and requested a second campus-wide demonstration. Though the team knew campus community members would be using the tool less frequently due to the winter break, they were encouraged to still hold the session, noting that the trial would end just two weeks later. This demonstration, marketed via our campus social media platform and widely shared by the subject librarians, was held January 12, 2023. Although this was offered during the winter intersession when the campus population is usually low the demo was judged a success with more than a dozen faculty and students in attendance.

Next Steps

The faculty librarian had reached out to the database representative for updated stats. At the time of publication, the number of uses since the start of HeinOnline’s implementation were as follows:

Table 4: January 2024 HeinOnline Usage statistics

Month	Hits	Articles	Page Views	Visits	Searches
2024-01	1871	174	204	66	9
2024 Totals	1871	174	204	66	9

Stats from 2023, were sent as well:

Table 5: 2023 HeinOnline Usage statistics

Month	Hits	Articles	Page Views	Visits	Searches
2023-12	13051	1003	1700	338	144
2023-11	8901	807	974	320	104
2023-10	9452	833	1320	279	56
2023-09	4182	444	742	152	63
2023-08	2082	214	398	72	34
2023-07	417	57	43	35	15
2023-06	226	9	29	11	16
2023-05	0	0	0	0	0
2023-04	0	0	0	0	0
2023-03	0	0	0	0	0
2023-02	0	0	0	0	0
2023-01	1037	164	79	96	27
2023 Totals	39348	3531	5285	1303	459

It should be noted that the university’s trial access for HeinOnline expired January 27, 2023, which explains the gap in usage between the months of Feb-May, 2023. Once we fully acquired the database on July 1, 2023, the number of hits, articles, page views, visits, and searches increased as time passed (most likely reflective of the busyness of the semester closer towards December).

The authors would like to continue raising awareness of this legal database for UMBC’s scholars. They believe that the more users understand how to navigate HeinOnline, the better their campus students and faculty will be at conducting their own research inquiries, taking advantage of the wealth of knowledge this database contains. They envision collaborating again with their HeinOnline representative to build and create recorded training sessions or workshops for users who would like to familiarize themselves with the database. Workshops could be offered at different levels, offering general instruction for beginners and exploring subject collections or focused search techniques for advanced users.

The pair also see this as an opportunity to expand these sessions into seminars, where faculty could schedule in-class research seminars for conducting research in real time to explore search strategies within and across collections. As training tools and techniques develop they can be added to the library’s website, supplementing Hein’s own help pages and highlighting collections of interest to departments that might not be aware of the access. The authors strongly believe that growing awareness of the database will lead to increased use beyond just “legal research”.

Considerations for Navigating a Database Trial

One consideration the authors had to account for was how cost-effective moving forward with HeinOnline would be compared to resubscribing to the current database. The current NexisUni subscription was costlier and more focused on specific departments and disciplines not housed at our institution. The authors did not receive specific pricing information regarding competing databases, although this information was requested from Technical Services. If possible, libraries interested in this database trial model should advocate for transparency with pricing information.

Not to be forgotten, documentation of the process is crucial in steering the database trial process. Short and long-term goals can be highlighted, including marketing and outreach and other accomplishments needed prior to the trial ending and the likelihood of a database trial becoming permanent. Additionally, documenting this process will likely improve the trajectory of future database trials, lessening the stress and confusion for team members on the project. We highly recommend keeping close track of any feedback forms, surveys, or evaluations sent out to multiple departments, both within the Library and throughout the institution writ-large, so that the statistics accurately reflect the community’s comments and observations as a whole. Polishing this process ensures a legacy of documentation for forthcoming library professionals who might also be interested in pursuing this work.

Conclusion

The authors found great success in their trial database journey. Due to a lack of documentation on the process prior to this project, the pair took the initiative to seek guidance in literature, and hone in on what they felt regarding marketing and outreach of the Library’s latest database trial. Furthermore, the pair hope that their work towards a more collaborative, hands-on approach promoting the database trial will influence the work of their institution for future trials, as well as serve as a handy case study for other academic libraries.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank HeinOnline representative Tim Hooge for his patience and work with them during their database trial and later implementation. They’d also like to thank Eresources and Discovery Services Librarian Amanda Calabrese for creating the Library’s first e-resources feedback form. In addition, author and Deputy Director of the American Library Association, Sarah Lamdan, and her timely publication Data Cartels for aiding in the authors’ understanding of the greater implications of privacy and library vendors. This case study would not have been possible without their vital contributions.

References

Bhatt, A. H. (2015). E-Trials in academic libraries: 101 and beyond. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 27(2), 121-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2015.1029424

Blanton-Watkins, J. (2022). Acquisitions, renewals, and cancellations: making effective recommendations during the e-resources lifecycle. Computers in Libraries, 42(9), 4-14.

Blanton-Watkins, J., & Jacobs, J. (2018). Database trials marketing plan. Collection Development Unit, 6, 1-6. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/collectiondevelopment/6

Budsize-Weaver, T., Anders, K. C., & Bales, S. (2020). Matters of scale: small-scale intensive outreach to graduate students. Public Services Quarterly, 16(3), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2020.1765945

German, E., & LeMire, S. (2018). Sharing the value and impact of outreach: Taking a multifaceted approach to outreach assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44, 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.11.001

Pionke, J. J. (2015). Community Organizing for Database Trial Buy-In by Patrons. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 27(3), 165-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2015.1059643

Ritterbush, J. (2012). Trials by juries: Suggested practices for database trials. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 24, 240-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2012.706149

Street, C. (2010). Getting the most from a database trial. Legal Information Management, 10, 147–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1472669610000551