Institutional Repository Exploratory Committee update 8/31/11

624 views

Published on

Institutional Repository Exploratory Committee update August 31, 2011

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
624
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
45
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Institutional Repository Exploratory Committee update 8/31/11

  1. 1. INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORYEXPLORATORY COMMITTEEUPDATEMott Community College August 31, 2011
  2. 2. What is IREC? Institutional Repository Exploratory Committee Goals:  Research concept of institutional repositories  Prepare proposal for Dr. Fugate
  3. 3. IREC Committee MembersKathy Irwin, Chair Director of Library ServicesMary Cusack Dean of Fine Arts & Social Sciences DivisionJohanna Brown Dean of Science & Math DivisionBob Rentschler FacultySheila Swyrtek FacultyAaron Gulyas FacultyDolores Sharpe Executive Director - Academic OperationsMargaret Bourcier Manager, e-Learning, FS And Web DevelopmentMarc Smith Manager of Computing ServicesMike Ugorowski Coordinator of Public Services – LibraryRebecca Gale-Gonzalez Marketing Assistant - Public Information
  4. 4. What is an institutional repository? An institutional repository is an online storage, retrieval, and preservation system of digital collections and content created by faculty, staff, and students at a given institution. Key elements:  Long-term preservation  Locally created and unique content  Easy access
  5. 5. How is it different? Does not replace  our website  our course management system  any other existing system The focus is content  Collecting,preserving, accessing  Locally created  Enduring value
  6. 6. Vision for our institutional repository Mott Community College’s Institutional Repository will be an easily accessible showcase of the pedagogical, intellectual, and creative output of our institution’s faculty, staff and students.
  7. 7. What might be included? College historical documents and photographs Gordon LaVere’s photographs Geology Museum collection photographs Audio files of sit down strikes Course syllabi, course outcomes Sabbatical projects Faculty publications Student awards and portfolios Ballenger Lecture Series videos, audios, PR materials
  8. 8. Why might we want one? Unique, locally created content  Not restrained by copyright issues  Not purchased  Share best practices  Spur innovation Alternate form of publishing  Students and faculty can store and provide access to their intellectual and creative output to a worldwide audience.  Evolving scholarly publishing model
  9. 9. Why might we want one? Give back to the community  Will show the community in part how their investment has created unique pedagogical, intellectual and creative output. Institutional visibility and prestige  Will showcase MCC’s pedagogical, intellectual and creative output.  Will make accessible valuable information that is currently hidden on network drives or only in print format.  Will enable Google and other search engines to find MCC content (such as faculty and student portfolios)
  10. 10. IREC TimelineMay-July 2011 Research and discuss institutional repository concept, begin drafting recommendationAugust 2011 Host demos of institutional repositories implemented by Michigan universitiesSeptember / Review and assess demos, finish draftingOctober 2011 recommendationNovember 2011 Present recommendation to Dr. FugateDecember 2011 Further steps to be determined
  11. 11. Demos Central Michigan University  ContentDM, CONDOR  Ruth Helwig, Systems Librarian Wayne State University  Digital Commons, Digital Commons @ Wayne State University  Jonathan McGlone, Librarian, New Media and Information Technology University of Michigan  DSpace, Deep Blue  Jim Ottaviani, Librarian, Deep Blue Coordinator
  12. 12. Demos• Purpose of institutional repository, why implemented• Why selected particular software system• Implementation process• Policies and procedures• Who manages the system, different roles• How they determined collections and contributors• Benefits realized• Obstacles experienced, lessons learned
  13. 13. Sample institutional repositorycollections Student art collection Literary magazine Faculty publication Oral history project Conference papers
  14. 14. Stakeholders College administration Faculty Library ITS Departmental leaders and college staff CTL Students
  15. 15. Stakeholders Implementing and managing an institutional repository is a collaborative process Centralize technical support and training (Library and ITS) Oversight committee (cross-campus representation) Individual departments take ownership and responsibility of the collections they create
  16. 16. Costs Software platforms  Commercial products – ContentDM or Digital Commons  Open source products – DSpace IT infrastructure and maintenance  Commercial products – little to no local resources needed  Open source products – server space for software and file storage Equipment Staff time  Largest cost  More staff intensive during implementation and pilot phase  Most institutions utilize 0.50 FTE
  17. 17. Resources EDUCAUSE whitepaper, Institutional respositories: enhancing teaching, learning, and research Mott Library LibGuide on Institutional Repositories
  18. 18. INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORYEXPLORATORY COMMITTEEUPDATEMott Community College August 31, 2011

×