This briefing paper captures the key findings and recommendations of

a study commissioned by the Joint Information Systems Committee

(JISC) on aspects of the strategic commitment of institutions to

repository sustainability.1 This project, labelled EMBRACE (EMBedding

Repositories And Consortial Enhancement) is aimed at enhancing the

functionality, inter-operability and extensibility of the SHERPA-LEAP

repository service, which currently supports the repositories of

thirteen University of London institutions. This briefing paper aims to

clarify the different motivations to use and invest in digital

repositories, and potential ways to address the challenges to

embedding these repositories in institutional strategy and daily

operation are highlighted. It is designed for use by Higher Education

Institutions (HEIs), who are encouraged to adapt the recommendations

to their specific context

Hoorens, S.

Villalba van Dijk, L.

English

UCL Discovery

EUROPERAND EUROPE RESEARCH AREASARTS & CULTUREDEFENCE & SECURITYEVALUATION & AUDITHEALTH & HEALTHCAREINFORMATION POLICY & ECONOMICSMODELLINGPOPULATION & AGEINGSCIENCE & TECHNOLOGYSOCIAL JUSTICEThis product is part of the RAND Europe research brief series. RAND research briefs present policy-oriented summaries of an individual peer-reviewed document or a body of published work; current or completed work; and innovative research methodologies. RAND Europe Westbrook CentreMilton RoadCambridge CB4 1YGUnited KingdomTEL  +44.1223.353.329 FAX  +44.1223.358.845Stijn Hoorens  hoorens@rand.org © RAND 2009www.rand.org/randeuropeEmbracing the future Embedding digital repositories in higher education institutionsWith the advances of technology, an increasing number of higher education institutions (HEIs) have implemented digital repositories (DRs). DRs can help HEIs to develop coherent and coordinated approaches to capture, identify, store and retrieve such intellectual assets as audio-visual objects, data-sets, presentations, learning material and research papers. Th   is has allowed various stake-holders to beneﬁ  t from DRs by enabling quicker, easier, wider and remote access to deposits, increasing visibility and adding value to the intel-lectual assets of the organisation.   Despite their potential beneﬁ  ts, repositories have yet to reach their full potential. Some HEIs have concerns about awareness of and commit-ment to repositories, and about their sustain-ability in future. Th  is  brieﬁ  ng paper provides guidance to HEIs that wish to invest in DRs as part of their institutional strategy. Th  e  poten-tial beneﬁ  ts of DRs are diﬀ  erent for research-ers and for library staﬀ  ; therefore the motiva-tions to support investments in DRs will diﬀ  er between stakeholder groups. Th   is brief outlines stakeholder-speciﬁ  c motivations and proposes strategies to address the barriers that HEIs have encountered when embedding DRs in their insti-tutional strategy. Agree and develop a strategy and vision for a repository i. link repository to the wider institutional strategyWe have identiﬁ  ed seven motivations for invest-ing in DRs (see table). Th   ese motivations diﬀ  er by stakeholder group: librarians will be more interested in facilitating electronic access to scholarly publications, while lecturers will be concerned about sharing and reusing digital learning objects. Hence, DRs have diﬀ  erent beneﬁ  ts for research-intensive universities than for institutions that have a focus on teaching. Similarly, use of digital resources and scholarly communication practices is often discipline- speciﬁ  c, and therefore the beneﬁ  ts of DRs will be dependent on the disciplines covered by an HEI.A DR strategy should be closely linked to wide institutional strategic plans. Depending on the strategy, a DR could function as an e-print archive containing working papers only, a man-agement tool for decision-making or even a sophisticated tool to facilitate sharing, reuse and manipulation of digital resources to create new content. ii. clarify how repositories will be managed and the resources that will be availableTh   e roles and responsibilities of those involved in DRs need to be clear in order to avoid confusion AbstractThis brieﬁ  ng paper captures the key ﬁ  ndings and recommendations of a study commissioned by the Joint Information Systems Committee on aspects of the strategic commitment of institutions to repository sustainability.1 This project, labelled EMBRACE (EMBedding Repositories And Consortial Enhancement), is aimed at enhancing the functionality, interoperability and extensibility of the SHERPA-LEAP repository service, which currently supports the repositories of thirteen University of London institutions. This research brief aims to clarify the different motivations for using and investing in digital repositories, and to highlight potential ways of addressing the challenges of embedding these repositories in institutional strategy and daily operation. It is designed for use by higher education institutions, which are encouraged to adapt the recommendations to their speciﬁ  c context.Project REsource1 Th  e  ﬁ  nal report of this study (Hoorens et al., 2008) is avail-able at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR625/. and to support management eﬀ  ectively at the institutional level. Th   e availability of dedicated resources – as well as their size and duration – also determines the extent to which stakeholders take ownership over the repository.iii. take into consideration the speciﬁ  c characteristics, interests and requirements of departments and institutionsTh   ere is no ‘one-size-ﬁ  ts-all’ solution. In fact, depending on the characteristics and dimensions of the HEI, diﬀ  erent strategies may be eﬀ  ective. Top-down approaches, such as an institutional mandate by senior management to deposit all scholarly outputs, may not be entirely eﬀ  ective. A man-date should be accompanied by bottom-up strategies aligned with the culture and performance incentives at department and unit level; for instance, language scholars are likely to have diﬀ  erent incentives from cell biologists.Embedding repositories requires communicating their beneﬁ  tsiv. communicate with potential users and suppliers of repositoriesIt is important to inform stakeholders regularly about the existence of repositories and their status and beneﬁ  ts, as well as how they can aﬀ  ect daily working operations. Outreach events, campaigns and promotions can be targeted to the speciﬁ  c characteristics and requirements of stakeholders. Where possible, these campaigns can highlight the papers that have been downloaded most frequently from the archive. Departments, units or researchers can be rewarded for the volume of work deposited.1. Agree and develop a strategy and vision for a repository that i.  is linked to the wider institutional strategyii.  is clear about how repositories will be managed and what resources they will have available iii.  takes into consideration the speciﬁ  c characteristics, interests and requirements of departments and institutionsDrivers for investing in digital repositories at higher education institutions, and the different stakeholders motivated by these drivers.Drivers for investing digital repositories Stakeholders1. Fear of missing the boatHEIs operate in an increasingly competitive environment characterised by a continuous race to the top. In such an environment, the opportunity costs of not investing in this technology related to DRs – expressed as the costs of falling out of step with the top institutions – could be higher than the investment costs.• HEI management• External relations• Library• Heads of department2. Providing a shop window for HEIsDRs can offer a central location, visibility and the opportunity to showcase the intellectual assets of HEIs. DRs have the potential to contribute to the reputation, recognition and branding of the organisation, and thus add to the organisation’s business success.• External relations• HEI management• Publishing• Library• Heads of department• Researchers3. Enabling archiving and preserving institutional assetsIntellectual assets in HEIs, including such valuable objects as theses, course material and data-sets, have not always been systematically archived and stored. Digital registration, archiving and preservation give organisations the chance to take better care of institutional assets that are central to the core business of an HEI. • HEI management• Library• IT department• Lecturers4. Facilitating open access to scholarly outputs Large publishers often impose barriers to access, whereas DRs offer open and free access to digital content. Universal access is said to democratise information, accelerate research, enrich education and contribute to mutual learning between rich and poor countries.• Library• Lecturers5. Decreasing dependence on the traditional publishing modelThe market for academic publishing has become dominated by several large players with signiﬁ  cant pricing power. However, with DRs supply has increased and a certain level of competition has been introduced, thereby reducing the dependence on and vulnerability of libraries to subscription fees.• Library• HEI management6. Providing an up-to-date overview of the scholarly outputInstitutional repositories can be used as a tool to harvest information to guide management decisions and research-unit funding. Furthermore, repositories can be used as instruments to record institutional performance and track the expertise and research interests available in the organisation.• HEI management• Researchers• Heads of department• External relations • Library• Publishing7. Exploiting the added value of digital content: cross-fertilisation and knowledge managementCharting, mining, analysing, sorting, navigating and displaying knowledge involve the interaction of several professions and new techniques of analysis, retrieval and visualisation. Research libraries have a potentially crucial role to play here as intermediaries between research production and consumption.• IT department• Library• Lecturers– 2 –v. involve department heads and champions of repositories Commitment from senior management is important to secure dedicated and sustainable resources for repositories. However, the direct involvement of department heads and declared advocates (champions) is also crucial for success. HEIs are decentralised organisations with considerable autonomy in departments. Organisational change has more leverage when it has the support of heads of department and other senior personnel who understand the user environment, the potential barriers and the beneﬁ  ts for the department. vi. tie in with existing communication networks Institutional repositories could be used as important com-munication tools and as instruments for exchanging ideas between academic peers. But they will not necessarily replace existing communication networks used by academ-ics. Th   ese consist of journal publication as well as informa-tion exchange through working papers, online forums, (inter-)departmental meetings or conferences. In order to be eﬀ  ective, this communication strategy needs to link up to existing networks, which are often discipline-speciﬁ  c.vii. address stakeholders’ concerns and communicate regularly through consultation and feedback Complicated copyright laws act as a barrier to depositing material by instilling a certain level of confusion about what may be publicly disseminated and what may not. Campaigns that guide authors by clarifying how copyright applies to the material deposited in a repository may con-tribute to decreasing the existing apathy about repository deposit. Some are concerned about the potential for DRs to contain contentious, sensitive or poor-quality mate-rial alongside peer-reviewed publications. Th  e  repository strategy should explain the mechanisms in place to monitor and guarantee the quality of a DR’s content. Even if there is little reason for such concerns, it is important to collate them via regular feedback, and to explain how these con-cerns are addressed. 2.   Embedding repositories requires communicating their beneﬁ  tsiv.  communicate with potential users and suppliers of repositories, who need to be made aware of the need and added value of repositoriesv.  involve both department heads and champions of repositoriesvi.  tie in with existing communication networksvii. address stakeholders’ concerns and communicate regularly through consultation and feedback3.   Providing incentives will change behaviour vis-à-vis repositories byviii. linking them to research excellence frameworksix. reducing the administrative burden, especially for content providersx.  awarding and supporting the heterogeneity of individuals and institutionsProviding incentives will change behaviour vis-à-vis repositories viii. link incentives to research excellence frameworkTh   e research assessment exercise (RAE) has had a sub-stantial impact on academic institutions’ and individuals’ behaviour. Th   e same can be expected from the research excellence framework (REF). It is necessary to understand how incentive structures are related to behavioural change, and thus how they can aﬀ  ect behaviour vis-à-vis reposi-tories. A top-down mandate is not required if researchers have an incentive to deposit all their research output in the repository. Th   is could work, if the content in the DR is analysed by the HEI to assess individual, unit or depart-ment research output by developing metrics that capture the volume and perhaps even the quality of the output. Th  ese metrics will then help the institution to make management decisions regarding resources.ix. reduce the administrative burden, especially for content providersRepositories will not be regarded as instruments that can save time until they are fully integrated into the daily opera-tions and become part of the daily routine for stakehold-ers at HEIs. Technology can contribute positively to the eﬀ  ectiveness of repositories, but its implementation may be met with resistance, particularly when it requires changing behaviour. Th   erefore, moving to an embedded DR should be seamless for users. Not only does the technical infra-structure (e.g., the user interface) have to be user friendly and adapted to the requirements of each discipline, but the administrative burden for the user should be minimised. Stakeholders at HEIs make diﬀ  erent uses of DRs and have diﬀ  erent requirements with regard to the design and content of a DR. Eﬀ  orts need to be coordinated to avoid approach-ing academics repeatedly about the same information. x. award and support the heterogeneity of individuals and institutions Interests, requirements and incentives for repositories are not aligned across departments, which undermines the formation of pooled constituencies to support repositories. – 3 –Further RAND reading:Hoorens, Stijn, Lidia Villalba van Dijk, and Christian van Stolk (2008) Embracing the Future: Embedding Digital Repositories in the University of Lon-don. RAND Europe, TR-625-UCLRothenberg, Jeff, and Stijn Hoorens (2008) Enabling Long-term Access to Scientiﬁ  c, Technical and Medical Data Collections. RAND Europe, TR-567-BLHoorens, Stijn, Jeff Rothenberg, Constantijn van Oranje-Nassau, Martin van der Mandele, and Ruth Levitt (2007) Addressing the Uncertain Future of Preserving the Past: Towards a Robust Strategy for Digital Archiving and Preservation. RAND Europe, TR-510-KBRothenberg, Jeff (1995) Ensuring the Longevity of Digital Documents. Scientiﬁ  c American 272(1): 42–7RAND Europe is a not-for-proﬁ  t research organisation providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND Europe’s publications do not necessarily reﬂ  ect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark.RAND Ofﬁ  ces   Santa Monica, CA  •  Washington, DC  •  Pittsburgh, PA  •  Jackson, MS/New Orleans, LA  •  Doha, QA  •  Cambridge, UK  •  Brussels, BE RB-9411-RE (2009)potential beneﬁ  ts of DRs are diﬀ  erent for researchers and for library staﬀ  ; therefore the motivations to support invest-ments in DRs will diﬀ  er between stakeholder groups. DR managers can map their potential objectives against the motivations of stakeholders in their institution and the bar-riers that they perceive. Th   is will allow repository managers to adjust their strategy to speciﬁ  c motivations as they receive feedback from groups of stakeholders, to communicate clearly what they are trying to achieve and to devise speciﬁ  c and targeted interventions to overcome the barriers relevant to the stakeholder groups that they seek to engage. Th  is, in turn, could lead to sustained support from the institu-tion and the embedding of the repository in institutional strategy. ■However, heterogeneity can be used as an opportunity to advance DRs. Aspiring academics, for example, may be more motivated than established ones to make their work accessible to a wider audience as they do not have well-developed contact networks or reputations, or a long-stand-ing track record. Researchers in some subject areas – such as economics – regularly publish working papers to solicit feedback from peers. A DR is an obvious vehicle to facili-tate this process. Above all, a DR showcases institutional research output.In conclusion Th  is  brieﬁ  ng paper provides guidance to HEIs that wish to invest in DRs as part of their institutional strategy. Th  e – 4 –This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation.This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work.  This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only.  Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited.   RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law.  Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.Limited Electronic Distribution RightsTHE ARTSCHILD POLICYCIVIL JUSTICEEDUCATIONENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTHEALTH AND HEALTH CAREINTERNATIONAL AFFAIRSNATIONAL SECURITYPOPULATION AND AGINGPUBLIC SAFETYSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSUBSTANCE ABUSETERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITYTRANSPORTATION ANDINFRASTRUCTUREWORKFORCE AND WORKPLACEThis product is part of the RAND Corporation research brief series. RAND research briefs present policy-oriented summaries of individual published, peer-reviewed documents or of a body of published work.The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.Support RAND  Browse Books & Publications  Make a charitable contributionFor More Information  Visit RAND at www.rand.org  Explore RAND Europe  View document details

Embracing the future: embedding digital repositories in the University of London. Briefing paper

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery