Case Study: Re-Engineering an Institutional Repository to Engage Users

Abstract

When institutional repositories were introduced, many libraries embraced them as a means to support and further the cause of open access and the dissemination of scholarly communication. As has been widely reported, however, faculty did not embrace the concept, and repositories generally have not filled up as envisioned. We pose the question: is it possible to design an institutional repository that faculty and graduate students find useful and attractive enough to change their ingrained habits and incorporate into their work routines? The University of Rochester's River Campus Libraries is engaged in finding out. Based on two major user research studies, the team at Rochester determined that a number of crucial features were needed to attract end user interest: the system must become part of the workflow during the research and writing phase, it must support collaboration with users outside the institution, it must provide quantifiable evidence of use, and it needs to allow the users to control and showcase their work. Based on their research, the River Campus Libraries developed a new open source institutional repository software system called IR+. With IR+, Rochester is testing the findings from their research, to see if a repository that goes beyond the collection of finished scholarly works and engages academics in the creation stages of their research will prove to be a more successful model.

Keywords:

• IR
• institutional repositories
• work-practice studies
• user research
• scholarly communication

Notes

1. The major indictment of the failure of institutional repositories is the seminal piece by Dorothea Salo, “Innkeeper at the Roach Motel” (98–123). Additional perspectives on the difficulties in recruiting repository content are provided by a useful literature review in (Markey et al. 156–157). A case study of a specific institution is provided by (Davis and Connolly n.pag.).

2. The available open source institutional repository software systems at the time (principally DSpace, Fedora, and ePrints) did not offer all the features we required. We were focused on addressing the needs of authors in the writing process. Systems such as CRIS (Current Research Information Systems) were broader in scope than the limitations of our grant period allowed. For more about CRIS, see (Björk 1–47; Tansey and Stembridge 212–226; euroCRIS website). For more about IR activity in the UK, see (Jacobs 124–141).