Barriers to Adoption of an Institutional Repository

Case Study: Academic Library

Jennifer Ward Eileen Llona Ann Lally University of Washington Libraries

In November of 2002, the University of Washington Libraries joined the DSpace Federation and began the process of setting up an institutional repository. As part of this process we set up a Libraries community, worked with the metadata implementation group, gave community presentations, and worked with individual librarians to begin the process of submitting library publications, including grey literature in the institutional repository. Problems immediately arose due to workflow issues associated with submitting items into DSpace. Preliminary investigation indicates that would-be contributors are reluctant to submit items due to the following factors: the interface is cumbersome and difficult to learn; they are unsure of the implications of the copyright agreements they signed when the article was published; once the system had been mastered, there was still the issue of finding time in their routine to take on another task.

Methodology

Online survey using locally-developed survey application Survey available to users for 2 weeks 16 questions; combination of multiple choice, open-ended comments 25 respondents 20 (80%) tenured librarians 4 (16%) non-tenured librarians 1 (4%) “other” Response rate ~ 25%

Librarians description of an institutional repository

• Preservation/Archive • Transform scholarly publishing • Didn’t feel comfortable defining 48% 30% 22% Local policy issues identified: • Unpublished, prepublished or published materials?

• Long term financial support of such an effort?

• Who will do the upfront work of inputting, metadata assignment, etc?

Importance of an institutional repository for preserving work and publication efforts

45% said important to very important to save libraries’ work 77% said important to very important to save faculty work

Barriers to submitting items to the institutional repository

Clearing/gaining copyright permission Perceived low level of institutional support Assigning appropriate metadata Lack of direction for this collection Preparation of documents to be submitted Nothing to submit 64% 56% 56% 48% 48% 36%

From the comments:

lack of interest in participating in what is perceived as a pilot project (3) institutional repository not yet identified in libraries’ mission (2) cost/benefit not clear (2)

Single most important barrier to submitting items to an institutional repository

Time Nothing to submit to this collection Copyright permissions Adding metadata 36% 20% 4% 4% Other 36% (all of the above, lack of interest, lack of familiarization with the whole issue)

From the comments:

low priority, no incentive to make time (2) unclear purpose/vision (2) no value in adding my publications to the collection (2) no support to publish in the first place

Additional Comments

• “What are the gaps in scholarly communication that we can actually address utilizing regional strengths of resources or knowledge or expertise?” • For those in the sciences, interested in the benefit of coupling a DSpace submission with a Community of Science presence.” • “Is anyone using DSpace as a way to preserve digital materials purcahsed for the collection (ebooks, etc)?”

Summary

Majority think an IR is important to preserve scholarship Common barriers include time, lack of items to submit, copyright clearance issues, lack of institutional support Communicating the goal and purpose of an IR and setting policies is crucial to get participation

Background Methodology Online survey using locally-developed survey application Survey available to users for 2 weeks 16 questions; combination of multiple choice, open-ended comments 25 respondents 20 (80%) tenured librarians 4 (16%) non-tenured librarians 1 (4%) “other” Response rate ~ 25% Users description of an institutional repository Title

abstract

Barriers to submitting to an IR Single most important barrier to submitting items to an institutional repository Time Nothing to submit to this collection Copyright permissions Adding metadata 36% 20% 4% 4% Other (all of the above, lack of interest, lack of familiarization with the whole issue) 36%

From the comments:

low priority, no incentive to make time (2) unclear purpose/vision (2) no value in adding my publications to the collection (2) no support to publish in the first place Importance of an institutional repository for preserving work and publication efforts 45% said important to very important to save libraries’ work 77% said important to very important to save faculty work Other barriers to submitting items to the institutional repository Clearing/gaining copyright permission Perceived low level of institutional support Assigning appropriate metadata Lack of direction for this collection Preparation of documents to be submitted Nothing to submit 64% 56% 56% 48% 48% 36%

From the comments:

lack of interest in participating in what is perceived as a pilot project (3) institutional repository not yet identified in libraries’ mission (2) cost/benefit not clear (2) Comments from #2 and #16