INTRODUCTION in a Global Environment of Rapid Technological Change, a Traditional Model of Scholarly Research Remains at the Core of the University Enterprise

Roles of engagement: Evaluating the institutional repository through scholarly communication research Rebecca Goldman Jay Bhatt Robert Sieczkiewicz Drexel University Libraries Drexel University Libraries Drexel University Libraries 3300 Market Street 3300 Market Street 3300 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA USA USA 1-215-895-1853 1-215-895-1873 1-215-895-1757 RebeccaGoldman [email protected] [email protected] @drexel.edu ABSTRACT The Drexel E-Repository and Archives (iDEA) is an institutional repository (IR) designed to capture and permanently store the scholarly output of Drexel University. Like many IRs, iDEA suffers from a lack of awareness by the Drexel community, and deposit rates are low. In order to make iDEA more relevant to the Drexel community, our study investigates existing research practices at the University. Over 100 faculty and graduate students responded to a survey about scholarly communication, defined as how scholars use and disseminate information through formal and informal channels. Survey responses revealed a wide variety of methods of sharing research and keeping up with the research of others, as well as a general lack of awareness about open access and institutional repositories. We then conducted in-depth interviews with a subset of these researchers in order to explore their scholarly communication practices in more detail, to explain iDEA's function, and to generate ideas for improving iDEA's content and services. Researchers’ responses suggest new functions for iDEA as a tool for collaborative and interdisciplinary research, and new ways for librarians and archivists to support research processes at the University. Keywords data libraries, grey literature, institutional repositories, open access publishing, scholarly electronic publishing, scholarly publishing 1. INTRODUCTION In a global environment of rapid technological change, a traditional model of scholarly research remains at the core of the university enterprise. Faculty members, whether individually or through collaboration with colleagues and graduate students, continue to publish their papers as they have done for generations. Among the technological changes affecting scholarship is the emergence of online repositories, including institutional repositories (IRs). A 2006 ARL survey of 87 member libraries found that 78% currently had an IR or planned to implement one in the near future [16]. Drexel University launched its IR, known as iDEA (Drexel E-Repository and Archives), in 2003, with the goal of capturing, preserving, and providing open access to the university’s scholarly output. Since library and archives staff would be responsible for adding items to the repository, iDEA aimed to capture “large aggregates of material from Drexel sponsored events” such as conferences and student “research days.”[4] A partially automated system used customized alerts to harvest Drexel citations from various sources and send custom emails requesting specific articles to Drexel authors. Staff sought out individual faculty to identify and acquire significant collections of work. Seven years later, iDEA functions effectively as a repository of electronic theses and dissertations, but it has not captured a large segment of faculty or student research. IDEA suffers from the low rates of participation and awareness common to IRs. Like other IR managers, Drexel library staff have learned that it is not enough to tell researchers about the various features available in their institution’s IR; researchers need to be motivated to use the IR[1] , and they need to see a personal benefit from depositing their work [7]. Salo[14] provides additional reasons for low rates of faculty participation: (a) faculty do not consider articles in IRs to be authoritative; (b) researchers do not believe that librarians can help with their problems related to digital curation; (c) IR managers have no authority over faculty; and (d) repository software is poorly designed. Based on their interviews with faculty, Jantz and Wilson describe even more barriers to participation by faculty: “‘redundancy with other modes of disseminating information, the learning curve, confusion with copyright, fear of plagiarism and having one's work scooped, associating one's work with inconsistent quality, and concerns about whether posting a manuscript constitutes ‘publishing’. [7]” Similarly, four other studies document unawareness and underutilization of IRs among faculty members. [8, 10, 15, 17] In light of the many obstacles to successfully gathering content for IRs, why implement them at all? An IR provides a way for an institution to collect and highlight research produced there, raising the visibility of the institution in the fields of study to which it contributes. As an open access (OA) repository an IR also adds to community outreach efforts by making research available to users outside of academia [2]. Finally, the increasing cost of journal subscriptions, combined with shrinking budgets and economic pressures, make a commitment to open access resources even more important for libraries. We hope to improve awareness of and participation in iDEA by investigating scholarly communication at Drexel. Scholarly communication is “the study of how scholars in any field…use and disseminate information through formal and informal channels. [5]” By investigating existing scholarly communication practices, we can tailor iDEA to support the research methods faculty are already using, rather than trying to convince faculty to change their habits. A second aim of our study is to uncover ways in which these existing practices are insufficient. If iDEA can play a role in the research process not currently being filled by another system or service, researchers may be motivated to use it. To study scholarly communication at Drexel, we distributed a short survey and followed up with in-depth interviews. The use of surveys and interviews to investigate scholarly communication habits is not unique. [8, 9, 11, 17] However, our approach differs from these earlier studies in significant ways. By using both methods within the same study we were able to generate quantitative and qualitative data for analysis. We also included graduate students in our sample, since their scholarly communication practices and needs may differ from those of faculty. Finally, we wanted to evaluate scholarly communication research as a form of outreach, and use the survey and interviews as a method for raising awareness and improving perceptions of iDEA. 2. SURVEY OF FACULTY AND GRADUATE STUDENTS 2.1 Survey Methods The survey questions were primarily written by the researchers, with a few adapted from earlier studies of scholarly communications [12, 17]. The survey was hosted online. Subject librarians at Drexel’s Hagerty Library were asked to advertise the survey to faculty and graduate students in their specialties. Faculty and graduate students in the humanities, social sciences, information sciences, and engineering received a standardized summary of the research project and a link to the survey via email. 2.2 Survey Results The survey received a total of 105 responses. Participants varied in discipline, academic rank, and years in the profession: Participants by discipline Information science, 21.9% Engineering and sciences, 42.9% Social sciences, 21.0% Humanities, 11.4% Fig. 1: Participants by discipline Participants by academic rank Graduate Other, Student, 11.5% 15.6% Doctoral Candidate, Professor, 11.5% 25.0% Postdoctoral, 1.0% Assistant Associate Professor, Professor, 25.0% 21.9% Fig. 2: Participants by academic rank In what decade did you earn your highest degree? 1970's or before, 14.3% 1980's, 10.5% 2000's, 53.3% 1990's, 21.9% Fig. 3: Participants by decade of highest degree earned Participants reported a wide variety of venues for publishing and sharing their work. Traditional venues, such as journals, conferences, and books, were most popular. Table 1. How researchers publish and share their work Method Percentage Journals 86.5% Conferences/Presentations 85.4% Books 38.2% Personal Website 19.1% Email 15.7% iDEA 7.9% Other 7.9% Academia.edu 4.5% Google Docs 3.4% I do not publish my research 2.2% or share it with others Disciplinary Repository 1.1% MyNetResearch 1.1% Educause 0.0% The venues most participants used for publishing and sharing their work were also popular as venues for keeping up with the research of others. Web 2.0 current awareness methods, such as blogs and social networking sites, were among the least popular. Table 2. How researchers keep current with research in their field Method Percentage Journals 96.6% Conferences/Presentations 82.0% Search Engines 57.3% Books 56.2% Colleagues at Other Institutions 49.4% Colleagues at Drexel 38.2% Listservs 27.0% Blogs 13.5% Other 10.1% RSS feeds 9.0% Social Networking Sites 6.7% MyNetResearch 2.2% Participants were asked to describe their primary motivation for publishing or sharing their research. Many participants listed multiple motivations; in these cases, only the first motivation they described was included in the analysis. Based on the responses, we developed a list of categories (see Appendix); the responses were categorized and tallied as follows: Table 3: Motivations for publishing and sharing Primary Number of Example responses motivation responses Sharing 24 “Furthering research exchange” “To share scientific results with others working in the field.” Advancement 15 “professional advancement”

Load more