Résumés
Abstract
What attitudes and perceptions do faculty members, graduate students, and other stakeholders have regarding the institutional repository (IR)? I conducted a study at the University of Western Ontario through a survey of 316 participants from various faculties and in roles ranging from graduate students to tenured faculty members, followed by interviews with 10 faculty members and 3 librarians to discuss aggregate results from the survey. Results suggest a course of action for librarians who work with IRs, based on participants’ perceptions of barriers to use (branding, data ownership, resistance to open access (OA), alternative avenues for self-archiving) and elements of the IR participants enjoy and find motivating for use (continued access for graduates, dissertations and theses, pre-print literature reviews, satisfying OA mandates). Suggested next steps to promote IR uptake cover a number of different areas: mediated deposit; clarify benefits for faculty members; communication between library and users; opt-in features; tenure and promotion; enforcing OA mandates; and collaboration.
Keywords:
- institutional repository,
- open access,
- scholarly communication
Résumé
Quelles attitudes et perceptions ont les membres du corps professoral, les étudiant.e.s des cycles supérieurs et les autres intervenant.e.s à l'égard du dépôt institutionnel (DI)? J'ai mené une étude à l'Université de Western Ontario au moyen d'un sondage auprès de 316 participant.e.s de diverses facultés et occupant des postes allant d'étudiant.e.s de second cycle à des membres permanents du corps professoral, suivi d'entrevues avec 10 membres du corps professoral et 3 bibliothécaires pour discuter des résultats globaux du sondage. Les résultats suggèrent une ligne de conduite pour les bibliothécaires qui travaillent avec les DI, en fonction des perceptions des participant.e.s sur les obstacles à l'utilisation (image de marque, propriété des données, résistance au libre accès (LA), alternatives permettant l'auto-archivage) et des éléments de DI que les participant.e.s apprécient et trouvent motivants à utiliser (accès continu pour les diplômé.e.s, les mémoires et les thèses, des revues de documentation en pré-impression, la satisfaction des mandats LA). Les prochaines étapes suggérées pour promouvoir l'adoption des DI couvrent un certain nombre de domaines différents: dépôt par médiation; clarifier les avantages pour les membres du corps professoral; communication entre la bibliothèque et les utilisatrices et utilisateurs; avantages d'adhésion; titularisation et promotion; application des mandats d'LA; et collaboration.
Mots-clés :
- communication savante,
- dépôt institutionnel,
- libre accès
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Abrizah, A., Mohd Hilmi, and Norliya Ahmad Kassim. “Resource-sharing through an Inter-institutional Repository.” The Electronic Library 33, no. 4: 730-748. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-02-2014-0040
- Borrego, Angel. 2017. “Institutional Repositories versus ResearchGate: The Depositing Habits of Spanish Researchers.” Learned Publishing 30, no. 3: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1099
- boyd, danah, and Kate Crawford. 2012. “Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon.” Information, Communication & Society 15, no. 5: 662-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
- Birks, Melanie, and Jane Mills. 2015. Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.
- Charmaz, K. 1996. “The Search for Meanings – Grounded Theory.” In. J.A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langehove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology, 27-49. London: Sage Publications.
- Creaser, Claire, Jenny Fry, Helen Greenwood, Charles Oppenheim, Steve Probets, Valérie Spezi, and Sonya White. 2010. “Authors’ Awareness and Attitudes toward Open Access Repositories.” New Review of Academic Librarianship 16, no. S1: 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2010.518851
- Dingemanse, M. 2016. “How Academia.edu Promotes Poor Metadata and Plays to Our Vanity and How It Could Improve.” Ideophone. Accessed September 13, 2020. http://ideophone.org/academia-edu-poor-metadata-vanity/
- Elsevier. 2017. “Elsevier Acquires Bepress, a Leading Service Provider Used by Academic institutions to Showcase Their Research.” Accessed September 13, 2020. https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/corporate/elsevier-acquires-bepress,-a-leading-service-provider-used-by-academic-institutions-to-showcase-their-research
- Foster, Nancy Fried, and Susan Gibbons. 2005. “Understanding Faculty to Improve Content
- Recruitment for Institutional Repositories.” Online Submission 11, no. 1. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html
- Gillespie, Tarleton, Pablo J. Boczkowski, and Kirsten A. Foot, eds. 2014. Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Government of Canada. 2016. “Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications.” Accessed September 13, 2020. http://www.science.gc.ca/eic/site/063.nsf/eng/h_F6765465.html
- Greshake, Bastian. 2017. “Looking into Pandora’s Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage.” F1000Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11366.1
- Hwang, Soo-Yeon, Susan Elkins, Michael Hanson, Trent Shotwell, and Molly Thompson. “Institutional Repository Promotion: Current Practices and Opinions in Texas Academia.” New Review of Academic Librarianship 26, no. 1: 133-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2019.1587483
- Kim, Jihyun. 2010. “Faculty Self-archiving: Motivations and Barriers.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 no. 9: 1909-1922. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21336
- Kim, Jihyun. 2011. “Motivations of Faculty Self-archiving in Institutional Repositories.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37 no. 1: 246-254. https://doi.org/j.acalib.2011.02.017
- Larivière, Vincent and Cassidy R. Sugimoto. 2018. “Do Authors Comply When Funders Enforce Open Access to Research?” Nature 562: 483-486. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07101-w
- Library and Archives Canada. 2020. “Theses Canada Portal.” Accessed September 13, 2020. http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/services/theses/Pages/theses-canada.aspx
- Lunden, Ingrid. 2013. “Confirmed: Elsevier Has Bought Mendeley For $69M-$100M To Expand Its Open, Social Education Data Efforts.” TechCrunch. Accessed September 13, 2020. https://techcrunch.com/2013/04/08/confirmed-elsevier-has-bought-mendeley-for-69m-100m-to-expand-open-social-education-data-efforts/
- Makula, Amanda. 2017. “‘Is It Like Academic.edu?:’ Faculty Perceptions and Usage of Academic Social Networking Sites and Implications for Librarians and Institutional Repositories.” Journal of New Librarianship, 1: 3-13. https://doi.org/10.21173/newlibs/2/1
- Mulligan, Deirdre K., Colin Koopman, and Nick Doty. 2016. “Privacy Is an Essentially Contested Concept: A Multi-dimensional Analytic for Mapping Privacy.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 374, no. 2083. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0118
- Ontario Council of University Libraries. 2018. “OCUL Collaborative Futures to Move Forward with Ex Libris Alma and Primo.” Accessed September 13, 2020. https://ocul.on.ca/ocul-collaborative-futures-to-move-forward-with-ex-libris
- Oguz, Fatih, and Shimelis Assefa. 2014. “Faculty Members’ Perceptions towards Institutional Repository at a Medium-sized University: Application of a Binary Logistic Regression Model.” Library Review 63, no. 3: 189-202. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/F_Oguz_Faculty_2014.pdf
- Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research. 2016.“Tri-Agency Process for Addressing Allegations of Policy Breaches by Researchers.” Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research. Last modified June 7, 2019. http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/#a6-1
- Seonghee, Kim, and Ju Boryung. 2008. “An Analysis of Faculty Perceptions: Attitudes toward Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration in an Academic Institution.” Library & Information Science Research 30, no. 4: 282-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2008.04.003
- SPARC Europe. 2019. “Setting the Default to Open: The Open Access Citation Advantage Service (OACA).” Accessed September 13, 2020. https://sparceurope.org/what-we-do/open-access/sparc-europe-open-access-resources/open-access-citation-advantage-service-oaca/
- Swan, Alma and Sheridan Brown. 2005. “Open Access Self-archiving: An Author Study.” UK FE and HE funding councils. Accessed September 13, 2020. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/.
- Tillman, Ruth Kitchin. 2017. “Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-deposit in Institutional Repositories.” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 5. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2203
- TSpace. 2021. “Communities and Collections.” https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/community-list
- Ukwoma, Scholastica C., and V. W. Dike. 2017. “Academics' Attitudes toward the Utilization of Institutional Repositories in Nigerian Universities.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 17, no. 1: 17-32. https://preprint.press.jhu.edu/portal/sites/ajm/files/17.1ukwoma.pdf
- Western Office of Institutional Planning & Budgeting. 2020. Western Databook. https://www.uwo.ca/ipb/databook/
- Xia, Jingfeng. 2008. “A Comparison of Subject and Institutional Repositories in Self-archiving Practices.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34, no. 6. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105552
- Yang, Zheng Ye, and Yu Li. 2015. “University Faculty Awareness and Attitudes towards Open Access Publishing and the Institutional Repository: A Case Study." Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 3, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1210
- Zhang, Hui, Michael Boock, and Andrea A. Wirth. 2015. “It Takes More than a Mandate: Factors That Contribute to Increased Rates of Article Deposit to an Institutional Repository.” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 3, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1208