Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
790
On Slideshare
790
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Institutional Repositories: Content and Advocacy Cokie Anderson, Associate Professor Electronic Publishing Center Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK USA cokie.anderson@okstate.edu
  • 2. The #1 Challenge for IR’s 2006 ARL Survey found that  getting content was the biggest problem for those implementing IR’s. 40% of respondents found it “difficult”  23% found it “very difficult”  Two of the top 3 challenges: “building  content” and “faculty engagement”
  • 3. But IR’s are brilliant! Why won’t the faculty use it? Afraid it will interfere with formal  publication or patentability Concern over ownership rights  Will their work become the property of  the university? Will their work be stolen?  Don’t want to bother  Already feel overworked and underpaid 
  • 4. How can we get them to participate? Make it mandatory  Controversial method  Use anthropology (U of Rochester NY)  Hire someone to observe faculty in their  natural habitat and determine where IR could fit into their workflow Advocacy (or in the US, Marketing)  Educate and persuade 
  • 5. IR Advocacy Techniques Educate faculty about the  advantages of an IR Identify opinion leader(s) to be  early adopter and champion Make it easy for them!  Harvest citations and issue  invitations
  • 6. Advantages of Participation Increased citation of their work (one  study found 300% increase) Articles can be found by Google®  They maintain ownership of works  No personal website maintenance  No broken URLs  Preservation, back-up and migration  of files (just say “WordStar”)
  • 7. Making it easy Offer authoring tools, user-friendly  submission interfaces, help line Do most of the work on the library  side Faculty submits work in any format  Library staff prepares submissions for  deposit in IR Let them know it’s working  E-mail citation stats 
  • 8. Outreach Efforts Mass e-mails to faculty  Library subject specialists liaisons  Peer-to-peer  Surveys  Presentations/Symposia  Follow up 
  • 9. Resources Bailey, C. W. et al. (2006) ARL SPEC Kit  292: Institutional Repositories. Online: http://www.arl.org Branschofsky, M. (2004) Using  Marketing Techniques to Encourage Growth of DSpace at MIT. Online: http://sparc.org Gibbons, S. (2004 ) Aligning Content  Recruitment Strategies with Faculty Work Practices. Online: http://sparc.org
  • 10. Resources Jones, R., Andrew, T., MacColl, J. (2006)  The Institutional Repository. Oxford: Chandos Publishing Ober, J. (2004) IR Content & Service  Expansion: the Case of eScholarship. Online: http://sparc.org