Session notes: Advocacy and institutional buy-in

Speaker: Sally Rumsey, Oxford Research Archive

http://ora.ouls.ox.ac.uk/access/

eTheses: How to encourage change and influence people

Sally commented that this is not as simple as might first appear, that there are several issues to be considered:-

  • Institutional Politics
  • Important to get vice chancellors onside
  • Important to sell the benefits to key stakeholders: what’s in it for them?
  • Drivers :where should the message be seen to be coming from
  • Who is involved – buy-in from all players, key individuals, especially  those at coal face

  Sally added that there are several different strands to this:-

  • The need to involve several different departments – libraries, central admin, graduate office, research offices, ethos, academic depts – avoid the silo approach

  • Be aware of institutional administrative:  university committees often work to slow timescales with regard to decision-making

  • Academic community– users and content providers, are the key community

  • Repository development

There may also be a need to give reassurance to some stakeholders e.g. worries about job losses

There are significant obstacles which need to be thought through and addressed:-

  • Anticipate risks and objections
  • Copyright and IPR
  • Be prepared for all manner of objections
  • Going digital is opportunity to rethink procedures
  • Ensuring you have the genuine article
  • The devil is in the detail

Practicalities to be considered:-

  • Timing
  • Help and support
  • Opportunities
  • Working with departments
  • Features and functionalities
  • Sustainability, maintenance and long-term provision
  • Publicity and communication

But there is a lot to be cheerful about:-

Help and Support are always available

We are all facing the same problems, which can be overcome

It is question of “when” not “if” this will happen

Stats are improving  

To Summarise:-

  • Provide reassurance to all stakeholders
  • Always address the fine detail
  • Cover all bases
  • Communication is key

 

Speaker: Susan Copeland

ETHOS Toolkit http://ethostoolkit.rgu.ac.uk/   

Specific Workpackages:

  • To assist institutions to make these available online
  • To offer guidance on alternative options for participating in ETHOS
  • Advice of the legal, cultural, technical, admin and resource issues

Approach:-

Flexibility – e.g. minimum metadata requirements

Specific e.g.s given here can be adopted/adapted – i.e. repository software

Searchable

Structure

4 step approach:-

  • Culture
  • Business
  • Technical
  • Training and development

Culture

  • Looks at Definitions, benefits, impact
  • What is EThOS itself?
  • Acquiring content
  • Supporting lit and evidence

Business Requirements

  • Case studies
  • Legal issues
  • Admin issues
  • Participation options
  • Rep options
  • Metadata
  • Prioritising digitisation

  Technical Implementation

Detail on expanding existing repository, setting up new one, or working with BL

Training and Dev

  • For all staff – library  and IT, academic, registry and students
  • Online or in person?
  • Marketing and advocacy
  • Periodic upgrading

 

Speaker: Paul Ayris, UCL

Institutional Issues: a London Casebook

Paul explained that the University of London is a Federal structure of 18 institutions.

Degrees are federal, in that they are awarded by the University of London.

Paper copies of theses are placed in senate house and in the institution.

Now, several institutions have degree awarding powers e.g. UCL, Imperial. The E-Theses working party was triggered by this development.

All UCL degree theses from 2007 will be deposited in an E-Prints repository

7 CURL institutions currently have mandate for electronic deposit.

UCL’s copyright is owned by students in own right

Therefore they have used the mandate on deposit of paper copy – as it is already in place

Points made in advocacy for this approach:-

  • Research theses heavily downloaded every month
  • So is a showcase for outputs
  • Adds to international strategy of the university

  Issues that have arisen:-

  • There is a difference between mandated deposit and open access
  • Embargo of 2 years possible if student chooses this (paper embargo is for this)
  • Important particularly in the case of  externally funded research

  • Possible impact of deposit on ability to publish – unlikely to publish once in a repository?
  • But can argue that surely dissemination is better than formal publication? i.e. greater exposure
  • 3rd Party copyright will continue to be an issue
  • Should be deposited but take-down policy will operate

Support:

UCL offers teaching sessions for graduate students on copyright and IPR issues

These are surprisingly popular!

Future Requirements?

  • Need extra staff to cope with deposit of 600/700 these a year
  • Paper copy continue to be deposited, but will re-examine this
  • Plans to digitise 500 most popular theses with funding

 

 Questions

Have their been any objections by departments in re-using data?

UCL’s attitude so far has been that it is saving data by deposit in a repository

  (It was commented that Oxford currently allows a partial embargo on 3rd party and spin-off content)

Do you still process paper theses differently?

 – There will be a change – individual institutions of the University will be cataloguing them themselves in future

What about accepting data associated with theses?

This issue has not been addressed yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bookmark and Share