









































190  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

Streaming Video for 
Theological Education
Dr. John B. Weaver 
Dean of Library Services and Educational Technology 
Abilene Christian University

ABSTR ACT Recent research reveals significant differences between 
theological libraries and other academic libraries in the licensing and use 
of streaming video. State-funded and large research university libraries 
have reported high adoption and significant expenditure. The compara-
ble trends raise significant questions about support of digital pedagogy 
in theological education, as well as the potential for new products that 
meet the curricular priorities and budgetary capacities of theological 
libraries. This paper reviews recent research and identifies opportunities 
for licensing of streaming videos among Atla institutions.

Recent trends in technology are dramatically reshaping academic 
library collections, and while the use of video in higher education 
isn’t new, the move toward streaming brings a new array of bene-
fits and challenges for academic librarians. I recently explored the 
ways in which libraries are addressing interest in streaming video 
services.

In April and May 2019, a survey on the topic of “Theological 
Libraries and Streaming Video” was sent to the ATLANTIS listserv. 
There were 45 responses, with 20 responses (44%) coming from 
schools with 500 students or less. A total of 13 responses (29%) came 
from schools with between 500 and 2500 students. Only 12 (27%) 
came from schools between 2,500 and 20,000, and no schools had 
over 20,000 students. The survey group, therefore, represents a 
profile of primarily smaller schools with almost 85% of participants 
coming from schools with less than 5000 students.

Of this number, over 71% of the respondents were from theologi-
cal libraries serving post-graduate education, with the reminder 



Listen and Learn  191

serving community colleges or two-year academic institutions (2%) 
or four-year college/universities (27%). 

The majority (58%) of these libraries are situated in a stand-
alone seminary context, with a significant portion located in a larger 
college or university library (27%) and a minority located in other 
types of contexts (15%).

Four respondents are in Canada, while the remainder are in the 
United States, representing a wide geographical variety from Cali-
fornia to Connecticut, Oregon to Georgia. Texas and Ohio had the 
largest number of respondents.

Forty-four (98%) of the schools are private, while one is public.
The results of this survey might be profitably compared to a 2017 

survey conducted by Library Journal, which asked a similar set of ques-
tions upon which my survey was based with the approval of the editors 
of LJ. The LJ survey focused on 221 four-year college and university 
programs, serving an average of 10,392 students. “Slightly over half 
of the schools were in public university systems.”1

In the Atla survey, the schools or their libraries provide a vari-
ety of streaming video content, from full-length movies and televi-
sion shows (31%) to historical archive footage (24%) to faculty and 
student produced content (35%). The most common type of content 
is documentaries (44%), followed by content newly produced for the 
academic market (35%). Twenty percent report providing no stream-
ing video content, and a couple of other libraries specifically reported 
providing access to Psychotherapy.net.

The Atla libraries use a variety of streaming platforms, includ-
ing Alexander Street (24%), Films on Demand (22%), Swank Digital 
Campus (11%), with Kanopy the most often used platform (27%). A 
significant percentage of libraries don’t use any of these major plat-
forms. The variety is reflected in the other resources utilized, with 
Psychotherapy.net mentioned five time as a platform. Other plat-
forms include: Wistia, YouTube, FilmPlatform.net, Tugg, and local 
instances of Omeka. 

When it comes to the number of streaming videos licensed, there 
is significant separation between two groups of Atla libraries. While 
39% report not licensing streaming videos at all, 41% report licens-
ing fewer than 500 videos. At the other end of the spectrum, 16% of 
respondents license 4000 or more videos per year. 



192  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

When it comes to the methodology for accessing the videos, a 
significant majority utilizes either remote access through IP address 
authentication (85%) or single sign-on (30%), with only 7% utilizing 
multiple logins. 

The single greatest challenge associated with providing streaming 
content is the cost (75%), followed by minimal concern with copyright 
(4%) and bandwidth (4%). Among other concerns were: staff time for 
selection and the challenge of streaming videos not hosted by a vendor. 
Convenience and accessibility were most often cited as the benefits 
of streaming content over physical video. This is reflected in the key 
factors when selecting a streaming content vendor.  Cost per title is 
the most important factor (83%), with nature of content (54%) and 
purchasing model (50%) the other most important considerations.

The selection of streaming video is most often done by faculty 
request (76%) with librarians of different types also responsible, from 
collection development personnel (40%) to the library director (28%) 
and subject librarians (16%). Student requests and vendor-selected 
titles were most often identified as another method of acquisition. 

The current method is not the preferred one, however, with libraries 
reporting a preference to acquire the majority of their streaming video 
content though demand-driven acquisition (22%) or title-by-title 
(26%) rather than through faculty request (13%). A similar difference 
is seen between the most common duration of license, which is one to 
two years (72%) and the preferred duration, which is perpetual (45%).

With most of the funding coming from an electronic resources 
budget (52%) or a media budget (29%), the largest number of library 
budgets are between $1000 and $5000 (38%) with most others being 
either less than $500 (19%), $500-$999 (14%), or $5000-$9,999 (14%). 
When analyzed by cost per title, librarians report that, on average, 
their title rate was most often $0-$49 (35%) or $150-$199 (30%), with 
$50-$99 being the third most common response (20%).

By contrast, in the Library Journal survey of academic libraries, the 
average budget for streaming content was $19,800 (median $12,800), 
with nearly half of libraries reporting budgets in the $5,000–$19,999 
range. The average amount spent per annual license for one stream-
ing title is $110.60.2

When it comes to budget, Atla libraries’ budget for streaming 
videos increased (33%) or remained the same (66%), with no decline 



Listen and Learn  193

reported. The source of any increased funding was most often a new 
appropriation (29%) or the print monograph budget (10%), and most 
librarians anticipated that this funding would either increase again 
next year (33%) or stay the same (43%). Usage metrics (55%) and 
inclusion in course assignments (45%) were the primary ways that 
the schools assign value to streaming content and assess its return 
on investment.

Comments on the reasons for faculty and students not making 
greater use of streaming collections focused on lack of knowledge 
of their existence and selection of titles that are not available in 
streaming format. The challenge of discovering streaming videos is 
underscored by the report that the most common ways that students 
discover the library’s video content is through “word of mouth” 
either through a faculty member (57%) or a librarian (52%). 

The use of streaming videos is recognized to span most academic 
disciplines, with usage highest in the social sciences and the pre-
professional disciplines, and lowest in the hard sciences and the 
arts. The specific uses of the videos are seen as highest with specific 
assignments in coursework (81%) and in demonstration of tech-
niques (43%) and as lowest when used as a primary source (5%).

Looking to the future, 6% of libraries are planning on adding 
streaming, while 53% will probably add streaming video, but have 
no immediate plans, and 40% have no plans to add streaming video, 
primarily because of cost.

When given a list of possible topics that would be a priority in 
their library’s licensing of streaming videos, libraries reported a 
variety of interests in areas of theology and social ethics, with great-
est interest in videos on trauma and healing (59%), economic justice/
poverty (45%), inter-religious dialogue (41%), the environment 
(35%), and mass incarceration/criminal justice (31%). 

Respondents were then asked the following question: “If a set 
of approximately one-hundred high-quality short films and longer 
documentary films on theological topics were made available for your 
faculty and students for research and instruction, what would you be 
willing to pay for this access on an annual basis?” Besides those who 
generally responded “it depends,” most (54%) of the libraries would 
pay $500/year for such a resources, while 18% would pay $1000/year, 
and 4% would pay $1500 and $2000/year, respectively.



194  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

As with any change in library collections, streaming video offers 
its own unique challenges and barriers to use. Overall, however, 
librarians responding to this survey reported a strong interest in this 
kind of content, as many students and faculty in their communities 
find it to be a powerful tool for teaching and learning. For students 
raised on Netflix and Amazon, streaming video platforms fit with 
their lives and their expectations for how technology works—and 
how to work with it.

FIVE CONCLUSIONS:

1. Streaming videos are an increasingly important part of theologi-
cal education, especially in classroom assignments and clinical 
(how-to) instruction.

2. Theological librarians have interest and need related to streaming 
video, but significantly less access to streaming video solutions in 
comparison to larger universities, primarily due to funding, but 
also due to availability of relevant content.

3. Funding for steaming video is a priority and is increasingly avail-
able in most cases.

4. There is interest in and available funding for a licensable set of 
theological videos costing $500-$1000/year with a focus on ques-
tions of social justice, health care, and religious dialogue.

5. This online platform for streaming videos would best be provided 
through IP authentication/SSO authorization, and it would best be 
organized and marketed according to the needs of a theological/
religious studies curriculum.

ENDNOTES

1  Jennifer A. Dixon, “The Academic Mainstream,” Library Journal 
(Sept 1, 2017), 42.

2  Dixon, “The Academic Mainstream,”44.


