annah macha mphil student department of library & information science, uct [email protected]...
TRANSCRIPT
GOOD MORNING!!!!
& WELCOME TO CAPE TOWN
2
Two South African IRs a comparative overview: UCT &
UP
Annah MachaMPhil Student Department
of Library & Information Science, UCT
A/Prof Karin de JagerCentre for Information
Literacy, [email protected].
za
3
Introduction
More institutions establishing IRs in SA many documents need to be preserved,
managed, & shared IRs preserve institution’s intellectual
property and increase institution’s visibility and prestige (Prosser, 2003:168)
4
Development of South African IRs 2002: national research strategy published renewal in information services sector SARIS Project: SA research institutes &
university libraries were accessing world research literature at high costs
Framework for eResearch services to SA research community be created
5
Development cont…
eResearch & innovation services be jointly funded projects coordinated at country level
2007: ASSAf inaugural meeting: beginning of open access movement in SA (Gray)
Initiatives were not successful eIFL & the Mellon Foundation provided
funding for starting up IR projects in SA.
6
Towards developing an IR at the UCT
Mss & A of the UCT Libraries began digitizing selected material in 2001 (Dunlop and Hart: 2005)
Digitization projects based on the San photographs (1910 and the late 1920s)
San collection listed by UNESCO:documentary heritage of international importance
Other projects at UCT, instigated by individual departments e.g. Computer Science- 2003, Faculty of Law- 2005
7
Establishment of the UCT IR Interviews showed digital initiatives at UCT
conducted at small scale: cost and staff resources
IR needed a budget for staffing, hardware and software and trained members of staff
From around 2006, repeated requests for University to budget for the start of an IR
In 2009, UCT Libraries obtained funding from the Carnegie Corporation - with WITS & UKZN $2.5 million over 3yrs
8
UCT IR New digitization unit was established, in
charge of developing the IR showcase UCT’s research The UCT repository at present consists of:a. digital collections-1891b. finding aids- 866 and c. theses and dissertations-1099
9
Description of IR @ UP
UP selected for comparative analysis with UCT: its well established. At present UP IR consists of 6621 materials
UP started as a pilot project in 2000 by: 2002 repository contained 39 theses
and 26 dissertations 2003: policy adopted by Senate to make
submission compulsory based on the success UPeTD, in 2006 UP
established UPSpace UP also has OpenUP: a sub-collection of
the larger UPSpace collection (Pienaar and Van Deventer: 2008)
10
Prerequisites for an IR Identify important role players Address issues of resources Evaluate software that would make the IR
an Open Access Initiative Establish policy for the IR Restructure library to accommodate
change Get a license
11
UP & UCT compared UP HOD Information
Science, subject librarians, metadata specialist, a digitization specialist and IT staff”
Needs analysis: survey
open source software – ETD-db
UCT Head of Digitization
Unit small-scale project in
2001 Proprietary software
DigiTool would integrate with UCT online catalogue Aleph and UCT portal, PRIMO by Ex Libris
12
Comparative analysis cont... At UP the IR
governed by Senate approved policy
new roles and responsibilities for staff
UP registered with the ROAR, openDOAR, Google Scholar & DSpace
UCT created a policy for the submission of print & electronic theses
UCT is restructuring roles and responsibilities of its staff
UCT has to register with open access harvesters
13
Criteria for a successful repository 1
1. Content Content recruitment is key: the core of the IRboth born-digital and older repurposed digital materials“the larger the critical mass of documents in an IR, the more it will facilitate output measures.” (Westell, 2006: 216)
2. Usenumber of users, type of content used and nature of use (Harnad and McGovern: 2009).Webometrics-how many hits have been made from the repository and how many articles have been downloaded
14
Criteria for a successful repository 2 Submission “repository deposit activity measures”
(Thomas: 2007) Number of submissions Frequency of submissions Type of submitter Participation of key stakeholders
SupportConstituent support Financial support Technical support
15
Criteria for a successful repository 3 Advocacy
informed awareness-“getting the right message to the right people with the tone and content varied by audience” (Johnson, 2007: 23)
communication plan for advocacy campaignadvocacy strategiesaddressing authors’ concerns
16
Criteria for a successful repository 4 Influence
providing assistance to other institutions in the country, region and in the world
Collaboration encouraged among IRs
Interoperabilitycapability of a computer hardware or software system to communicate and work effectively with another system in the exchange of data (Reitz: 2006)Interoperability: metadata &format compliance Dublin Core metadata: OAI proposed OAI-PMH standardsOAIster and other search engines, Google Scholar can harvest their contents
17
Finally UP & UCT
Two IRs not similar UP firstly ETD; then UPSpace & Open UP UCT not focused on ETD alone: Special &
Heritage collections UCT will in future have ETD repository UP: open source, UCT: proprietary
software UP as a benchmark: success Influence
18
Conclusion
IRs are important:Collect & housePreserve & archive research outputEnhance visibility & prestige of institution