Open Access News

News from the open access movement


Friday, September 09, 2005

IR's for institutions and individuals

Erv Blythe and Vinod Chachra, The Value Proposition in Institutional Repositories, Educause Review, September/October, 2005. Excerpt:
[T]here is a developing realization today that although institutional repositories must have institutional organization, coordination, and investment, they will be successful only when they achieve broad and voluntary participation by individuals in the communities they serve....The deployment of IRs can be expensive. In creating such a repository, an institution makes an implied commitment that it will provide resources to manage the repository and will keep the contents preserved and accessible. Yet, ignoring institutional repositories may turn out to be even more expensive than deploying them....The value to the institution comes from the collocation, the interconnection, the archiving, and the preservation of the intellectual output of the institution. However, consistent and controlled exposure of the content will perhaps provide the greatest value. This suggests that individuals from outside the institution should have relatively easy and, wherever possible, open access to these repositories. IRs that lead to partnerships and collaborations with other national and global institutions also increase the exposure, utility, and value. To facilitate this broader access, it is expected that metadata from these repositories will be harvested by others to create search-and-access databases that may be organized along subject and/or geographic lines.... The term institutional repository has little appeal to faculty because it implies that the system is designed to support and achieve the needs and goals of the institution, and not necessarily those of the individual....In concluding its study, the University of Rochester team developed two strategies to address faculty’s lack of interest in and understanding of the repository concept. The first strategy involved approaching faculty on their turf and using terminology that stressed the benefits and capabilities of the repository for individuals (e.g., the term personal digital repository can be used to highlight the individually customizable aspect). The second strategy dealt with creating ways in which faculty could use the repository to showcase their achievements and to participate in the design of the digital space.