Hide Notes 

Slide 1: Institutional Repositories: Is there anything else to say?
Slide 2: Goals of the Presentation • Explore the hype and reality • Raise three critical issues • Speculate on collaboration
Slide 3: Perspectives on Repositories Too few initiatives include all the stakeholders…OCLC Environmental Scan (2003) “Institutional repositories represent the logical convergence …” Raym Crow (2002) “… fundamental component in the battle to control scholarly publishing. “ Steven Harnad (1997) “…demonstrate to stakeholders how it will work…” Morag Mackie (2004) … small scale and little diversity Mark Ware (2004) “ … library’s role as archive or steward of information goods is being transformed…” Wendy Lougee (2004) “… set of services … for the management and dissemination of digital materials created by the institution and its community members.” Cliff Lynch (2003) … focuses on technical design considerations for digital preservation. Paul Wheatley (2004) “…not a replacement for someone’s hard drive, but rather a community-shared alternative to it.” …Susan Gibbons (2004) … doughnut IT infrastructure” Edward Ayres (2003)
Slide 4: State of the art • Significant software tool development underway. • Trapped inside the small box of “scholarly publication.” • Set up as change agents in the battle with publishers for the future of scholarly communication and the future of libraries. • Public good assumed; content value untested.
Slide 5: If You Build It … • Focusing them • Filling them • Selling them The promise of a vital service to scholarship has turned into a giant public relations headache.
Slide 6: Goals of the Presentation • Explore the hype and reality • Raise three critical issues • Speculate on collaboration
Slide 7: Three Critical Issues • Content domains • Archival principles • Incentives Social and political aspects of transforming repositories into archives and archives into assets
Slide 8: Content Domains
Slide 9: Content Domains e-Teaching Low e-Research Digitized Content Acquired Content Web Gateway Structural Integrity Managed Content Licensed Content High e-Records Yes No e-Publishing Right to Manage Intellectual Property
Slide 10: Content Domains Lingering Questions: • Is “format” a meaningful construct? • Is web context preservable in any meaningful way? • Are scholarly publications the place to start? • Isn’t this really about asset management?
Slide 12: Three Critical Issues • Content domains • Archival principles • Incentives
Slide 13: Archival Principles With 20 years of electronic records thinking;;; Don Waters & John Garrett Preserving Digital Information (1996) • Archival principles identified as “integrity” – – – – – Content (structure and format) Fixity Reference Provenance Context http://www.rlg.org/ArchTF/
Slide 14: Archival Principles Anne, Gilliland-Swetland Enduring Paradigm, New Opportunities (2000) • • • • Evidence Provenance Life Cycle of Records Organic Nature of Records • • • • • Integrity Metadata Knowledge Management Risk Management Knowledge Preservation http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub89abst.html
Slide 15: Preservation Principles Paul Conway. Preservation in the Digital World (1996) • • • • • Longevity Choice Quality Integrity Accessibility • • • • • Media systems Appraisal of value & use Data standards Intellectual value Persistent functionality http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub62.html
Slide 16: Archival Principles Preservation and archiving are equivalent • Trust through certification (RLG) • Integrity through metadata (OAIS) • Authenticity through process (InterPARES) • Manage assets on behalf of end users (OAIS) • Life cycle management (records management)
Slide 17: Three Critical Issues • Content domains • Archival principles • Incentives
Slide 18: Incentives to Preserve Brian Lavoie, “The Incentives to Preserve Digital Materials: Roles, Scenarios and Decision-Making,” OCLC Office of Research, April 2003. • Roles • Incentives • Organization http://wwww.oclc.org/research/projects/digipres/incentives-dp.pdf
Slide 19: Incentives to Preserve Roles in Preservation OAIS: Producer – Manager – Consumer Economics: Rights Holder (R) – Archive (A) – Beneficiary (B) authority + willingness + need = incentive to preserve
Slide 20: Incentives to Preserve Digital preservation is an aftermarket service. • Centrifugal: (R) – (A) – (B) – JStor – Roles spread out among separate entities • Supply-side: (R – A) – (B) – Elsevier self-archiving – Willingness and authority are combined • Demand-side: (R – B) – (A) – I-Vault! – Authority and need are combined • Consolidated: (A – B) – (R) – KB / Elsevier deal – Need and willingness are combined • Centripetal: (R-A-B) – Institutional repository – Roles compressed to a single entity
Slide 21: Incentives to Preserve Complications in establishing incentives • Positive externalities (centrifugal, supply, consolidated) – Preservation procedures benefit external party – Only sufficient activity to satisfy rights holder • Free-riding (centripetal, demand) – Multiple organizations hold copies – “preservation chicken” • Variation in demand (centrifugal, supply, demand) – High-end versus low-end expectations Market failure results when incentives are diminished.
Slide 22: Incentives to Preserve Overcoming disincentives to preserve • Positive externalities – Subsidies to rights holder or archive • Free-riding – Exclude via subscription – Deny access to non-contributors • Variations in demand – Offer various levels of preservation service @ varying costs
Slide 23: Incentives to Preserve • Centrifugal: (R) – (A) – (B) – JStor – Positive ext. (subsidy/fee) + variation (exclude low) • Supply-side: (R – A) – (B) – Elsevier self-archiving – Positive ext. (fee) + variation (service levels; fees) • Demand-side: (R – B) – (A) – I-Vault! – Free-riding (fee) + variation (service levels) • Consolidated: (A – B) – (R) – KB / Elsevier deal – Positive ext. (subsidy by archive) • Centripetal: (R-A-B) – Institutional repository – Free-riding (exclude non-payers)
Slide 24: Localized Incentives Universities are diverse organizations. • Many stakeholders with competing interests (R) • Many possible technology players (A) • People who benefit to different degrees (B) What if… • Multiple relationship sets exist locally • Incentives can be modeled as a closed system • Multiple incentive arrangements could co-exist
Slide 25: Duke Incentive Use Cases • (R) – (A) – (B) – Library-managed repository – Roles spread out among separate entities • (R – A) – (B) – Center for Documentary Studies – Willingness and authority are combined • (R – B) – (A) – Duke University Photographer – Authority and need are combined • (A – B) – (R) – Duke University Press – Need and willingness are combined • (R-A-B) – Center for Genomics/Bio-medical Eng. – Roles compressed to a single entity
Slide 26: Issues in Summary • Content from the users perspective may not be “institutional” • Archival principals are not yet the heart of repository design • One flavor won’t fit at local level
Slide 27: Goals of the Presentation • Explore the hype and reality • Raise three critical issues • Speculate on collaboration
Slide 28: Collaboration Lingering questions • Is the “institution” the right unit? • Are “disciplines” a meaningful unit? • Are libraries the proper locus of leadership?
Slide 29: Collaboration Options and opportunities • Federated archives (OAIS-OAI)
Slide 30: Federated Archives Local Consumer Dissemination Information Package (Optional) Producer Ing Acc/Dis Acc/Dis Acc/Dis OAIS 1 Adm Adm Adm Global Consumer Common Catalog Adm Producer Ing Acc/Dis OAIS 2 Adm Adm Adm Acc/Dis Local Consumer Dissemination Information Package (Optional) 10038685-g17 Man
Slide 31: Collaboration Options and opportunities • Federated archives (OAIS-OAI) • Collaboration with scholarly networks [rather than disciplines]
Slide 33: Blake Archive
Slide 36: Collaboration Options and opportunities • Federated archives (OAIS-OAI) • Collaboration with scholarly networks [rather than disciplines] • Collaboration between Institutional Repositories and Personal Information Management
Slide 37: Chandler
Slide 38: Collaboration A new orientation for content management. Wendy Lougee: “…in particular the new ways in which the research library’s role as archive or steward of information goods is being transformed as a collaborator and potentially a catalyst within interest-based communities.” Edward Ayers: “We can democratize higher education only if we use our colleges and universities to build things that wide audiences can and will use at minimal cost.”
Slide 39: Redefine the Question Institutional repositories are a great answer to the wrong problem. • Not scholarly communication • Content for faculty development Repositories assemble and deliver raw material in ways that enhance faculty productivity.
Slide 40: What can OCLC do? • • • • Project “dating service” Provide cost share for grants Fund applied research Hosting proof of concepts
Slide 41: Thank you! Paul Conway Director, Information Technology Services Duke University Libraries paul.conway@duke.edu http://www.lib.duke.edu/its
Slide 42: References The 2003 OCLC Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition. http://www.oclc.org/membership/escan/default.htm Lynch, Clifford A. “Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age.” ARL Bimonthly 226 (Feb. 2003). http://www.arl.org/newsltr/226/ir.html Wheatley, Paul. “Institutional Repositories in the context of Digital Preservation.” DPC Technology Watch Series Report 04-02. March 2004. http://www.dpconline.org/graphics/reports/ Gibbons, Susan. Establishing an Institutional Repository. ALA Library Technology Reports, 2004. http://www.techsource.ala.org
Slide 43: References Ware, Mark. “Universities' own electronic repositories yet to impact on Open Access.” Nature, 2004. http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/4.html Crow Raym “The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper.” ARL Bimonthly Report 223 (August 2002). http://www.arl.org/newsltr/223/instrepo.html OCLC 2004 Information Format Trends: Content, Not Containers. http://www.oclc.org/info/2004trends Mackie, Morag. “Filling Institutional Repositories: Practical Strategies from the DAEDALUS Project.” Ariadne 39 (April 2004). http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue39/mackie/
Slide 44: References Ayers, Edward L. and Charles M. Grisham. “Why IT Has Not Paid Off As We Hoped (Yet).” EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 38, no. 6 (November/December 2003): 40–51. http://www.educause.net/apps/er/erm03/erm0361.asp Lougee, Wendy Pradt. 2004. "Scholarly Communication & Libraries Unbound: The Opportunity of the Commons." Presented at the Workshop on Scholarly Communication as a Commons, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, March 31-April 2, 2004. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00001250/
Slide 45: References William Blake Archive. http://www.blakearchive.org/ Dickinson Digital Archive. http://www.emilydickinson.org/ Walt Whitman Archive. http://www.whitmanarchive.org/ Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ Duke University. Student Portfolio. http://www.duke.edu/studentportfolio Duke University Libraries. Information Technology Services. http://www.lib.duke.edu/its