Supporting Research Dissemination - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Supporting Research Dissemination

Description:

www.oclc.org – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:97
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 48
Provided by: robins169
Learn more at: https://www.oclc.org
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Supporting Research Dissemination


1
Supporting Research Dissemination
  • John MacCollEuropean Director, RLG Partnership
  • James ToonERIS Project ManagerEdinburgh
    University LibraryRLG Partnership Annual
    Meeting, Chicago, June 2010

2
Context
3
Minnesota anthropological approach
4
Actionable intelligence Assisted thinking
  • Analysis and synthesis of the available evidence
    base
  • Improved understanding for library management

oclc.org/research/publications/library/2009/2009-0
2.pdf
5
Breaking behaviours down by discipline
browsing collecting
re-reading
assembling consulting
note-taking
Adapted from C. Palmer, L. Teffau, C. Pirmann
(2009)
6
RIM overlapping environments
7
Meeting researchers needs
8
RIN
9
Ithaka
10
UCB
11
Our joint project with UK Research Information
Network Support for research workflows
12
New elements to our study
  • Focus on dissemination excluding traditional
    journal and monograph publishing
  • Focus on subject librarians/faculty liaisons
  • Focus on repository support for scholarship

13
Enhancing Repository Infrastructure in Scotland
14
Scotland and Open Access
15
Some history Scottish Collaboration in Open
Access
  • History of collaborative activity (i.e. SCURL,
    SHEDL, SDLC, IRIScotland, ERIS)
  • Open Access as a reaction to the scholarly
    communications crisis
  • Open Access meeting 11th October 2004, Royal
    Society of Edinburgh
  • Scottish Declaration on Open Access launched at
    that meeting (OATS)
  • First joint OA project IRIScotland funded by JISC
    June 2005 and ran until 2008

16
Scope, aims and objectives
  • Development, assessment and engagement of user
    communities
  • Raise issues surrounding the longevity and
    broader value of research output
  • Attending to the demand side, technologically
  • Strategic recommendations, business planning and
    sustainability

17
Scottish toes in the water
18
ERIS Use case Research Pooling (1)
  • Formed after 2001 Research Assessment Exercise
  • Subject to massive investment by Scottish HEI,
    Scottish Funding Council and others
  • Demonstrated value following 2008 Research
    Assessment Exercise
  • Specific needs for reporting and strategic
    development
  • More than 383 million invested to date across13
    initiatives.

19
ERIS Use case Research Pooling (2)
  • Are research pools representative of specific
    disciplinary needs?
  • Assessment of pooling performance indicators
  • Identify and understand information drivers
  • Review of research pool (meta)data needs plus
    gap analysis against existing repository
    landscape
  • Develop virtual repository space to facilitate
    reporting

20
A few findings from our work
http//www.flickr.com/photos/adambot/2733161467/
21
Levels of engagement
  • 69.7 (216) of respondents were aware of the
    existence of a repository
  • 44.8 (139) have deposited something in their
    repository, with 80 finding it either very easy,
    or easy to do.

22
Levels of engagement
  • However on average, only 15 submit to their IR
    as a matter of course as well as to publishers

15
23
Levels of engagement
  • Repositories are being used for research, but
    very rarely are they used directly.
  • Normally via referral (43 via search engine, and
    16 referral from colleague

24
From focus group work (some key points) open
access
  • Researchers generally see repositories as being
    there to support their institutions support for
    OA
  • Personally they are generally supportive of OA,
    but there are pros and cons and no single
    convincing argument (and dont think their should
    be)
  • Researchers have been doing OA if they wanted
    to for years now, by fair means or foul!
  • Variation in support across career paths (early
    career to senior academic)
  • The drive to OA can be damaging in some cases

25
From focus group work (some key points)
  • The pressure to publish in recognised journals is
    significant, and is an administrative and career
    need (in the UK at least)
  • Must have ability to exercise personal control
    over everything that is in the repository (to
    provide or revoke access at will)
  • Repositories dont offer anything that the
    researcher finds sufficiently of value to
    motivate deposit.
  • Library providers are disconnected from the
    researchers real needs (as far as researchers are
    concerned)

26
Long term availability and reuse of research
  • Those responsible for service and support are
    unequipped
  • Low awareness of digital curation and
    preservation issues, and little to no practical
    experience
  • Policies that do exist are part of corporate
    initiatives and are often box ticking exercises
  • Domain specific guidance for preservation and
    curation policy tends to sit outside of the
    institution, indicating issues of leadership and
    direction

27
Long term availability and reuse of research
  • Those responsible for research are unequipped
  • Open access is easy in relation insert your
    term here curation is hard.
  • Potentially huge overhead for the researcher
  • Services for preservation and curation support
    are generally lacking
  • We can't stand on the shoulders of giants if we
    only have access to their knees1
  • Growing support for principle of open
    scholarship, but requires change in philosophy,
    not practice.

1. Quote from Vision Learning Blog, may 24th 2010
http//visionlearningcommunity.blogspot.com/2010/0
5/journal-nature-continues-open-access.html 
28
Indication of the scale of the issue
29
Indication of the scale of the issue
63
30
Research pooling
  • Not just for assessment, but for effective
    strategic management of research
  • Genuine desire for full text and bibliographic
    data for knowledge management (KT really
    important)
  • Have strong backing from their members.
    Discipline trumps institution.
  • Data must be broader than just IR need to
    include HR, Finance, Knowledge data, Grant data,
    Funder data.
  • They know they want data, but they dont know
    what they want or how to define it.

31
A few observations (not conclusions)
  • Systems and services not based on user needs
  • Repository use often by accident
  • There is no single approach every
    institution/discipline/researcher is different
  • Its all about me, me, me.
  • We can often talk in a foreign language
  • We can often not talk at all
  • Failure to add value has meant that we had to
    resort to mandates/requirements sticks not
    carrots.

32
What is the future of the repository?
  • As it is are we heading the way of the Dodo?
  • Must gain trust of the users
  • Two clear paths support for knowledge and
    research, and support for research management
  • Institutional repositories are only part of the
    eco-system of systems servicing the research life
    cycle

http//www.flickr.com/photos/44124372821_at_N01/16787
1469
33
Work with users to gain trust and define direction
  • Stakeholder communities are identifiable and
    similar across Higher Education
  • Many varied needs.
  • Roles and mission are however not universally
    well defined in context.
  • Lack of internal support means they are often
    looking outside their institutions for comfort.
  • Stakeholder groups want to collaborate and
    communicate
  • Need greater facilitation. Opportunities for
    national networks

34
Develop roles and up-skill support services
  • All through the ERIS exercise, the need for
    effective research support has been key
  • Need to develop specialist roles to support the
    research life cycle
  • Take a role in helping researchers with the
    dissemination of knowledge
  • Work more closely together with research offices
    as information specialists
  • Economies of scale in services need to be
    considered for cost/benefit (unpopular)

35
Support the dissemination of knowledge
  • Open access is still a goal, but not THE goal
    of repositories. Discuss.
  • Open scholarship/knowledge revolves around
    effective curation of data. Discuss.
  • The coolest thing to do with your data will be
    thought of by someone else1
  • Being linked and being open is important (open
    standards esp.)
  • How to engage in an open, social world.
    Participate, collaborate and innovate not
    reinvent the wheel.

1. Attributed to Rufus Pollack, via
http//blogs.talis.com/nodalities/2007/05/xtech_da
y_3_rufus_pollock_and_.php
36
Research Information Management Systems
Image reproduced with kind permission of the
Universities of Aberdeen and St Andrews
37
Make change to an objective, outcome based
approach.
  • Programme of activity to develop enhanced
    capability over time.
  • Investment in enabling activities
  • Services for researchers
  • Services for strategy and management
  • Services for service managers

38
The study
39
Researcher behaviours
  • This Working Group will look at the use of
    repositories institutional  and subject  and
    other venues  where attention is focused by
    various communities 
  •  It will examine social networking mechanisms for
    dissemination, considering the spectrum of
    community services grouped around research
    activity (including informal community spaces,
    blogs, blog aggregation services, microblogging,
    etc )
  •  Faculty participants will also be asked about
    tools and services not currently available that
    they would value, at institutional and at domain
    levels
  •  Focus will be on the use of repositories, not
    the deposit process

40
Library responses
  • How are changing researcher practices being
    monitored by libraries?
  • What does the use of these tools and services
    imply for libraries (eg in respect of harvesting,
    curation, bibliometric services and
    preservation)?
  • What new services should libraries provide (eg
    bibliometric data reports generated from
    repositories)?
  • Is there missing infrastructure that might
    valuably connect discrete data sources to serve
    research bibliographic and data curation needs?
  • How do libraries support scholarship rather than
    administration?

41
U Minnesota Karen Williams on changing faculty
liaison roles (ARL study) from new Position
Description Framework
Jim Neal Subject Librarian 2.0
42
Nil desperandum Hugh Glaser (Computer
Scientist, U Southampton) email to
JISC-REPOSITORIES, 2 June 2010
  • the pages the School was offering for me by
    embedding my publication data in the official
    profile pages was far superior to anything I
    could make myself

43
U Minnesota Karen Williams on changing faculty
liaison roles (ARL study)
44
Process
45
RLG-RIM SRD group Plan/Process (1)
  • Identify and define scope of stakeholders and how
    are they going to contribute to the project
  • Establish contact with contributing group
  • Write and agree project definition work
  • Arrange telcon to sign off approach with
    stakeholders at end June
  • Project Website and social tools to be used for
    user communication and collaboration
  • Set up and make available communication routes
  • Set up simple communications plan by end June

46
RLG-RIM SRD group Plan/Process (2)
  • Liaison librarian engagement plan
  • Agree data collection method, questions and
    targets for work by end June
  • Prepare materials for project participants
  • Prepare datasheets, questions, check-sheets etc
    for data collection by mid July
  • Compiled, ordered data from sources
  • Data returned, sorted and ordered by end August
  • Mid August partner telcon to discuss progress and
    push if necessary
  • Data analysis
  • Review of collated data and order for reporting
    by end Sept

47
RLG-RIM SRD group Plan/Process (3)
  • A Final report on the RLG/RIM SRD activity for
    publication
  • First draft out for review by mid Oct.
  • Partner telcon at end Oct to sign off report for
    publication
  • Publication due mid November.
  • Planning for alternative dissemination routes
  • Set activities to promote final report
    (presentations, blog posts) on ongoing basis
  • Closure report, identifying follow on actions
    including handover and wind-down activities
  • Project wind down and hand over to RLG by end
    November

48
  • Discussion!
  • maccollj_at_oclc.orgjames.toon_at_ed.ac.uk

49
Next up
  • 400
  • Lightning Rounds
  • Buckingham
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com