Open Repositories 2009, day 2, session 5b.
Social marketing and success factors of IR’s: two thorough but not very exciting sessions. Though the lack of excitement is maybe also because the message is quite sobering: we already know what needs to be done, but it is very hard to change the (institutional) processes involved.
(where social marketing doesn’t stand for web2.0 goodness, but for marketing with the aim of changing social behaviour, using the tools of commercial marketing).
Generally, face to face contact works best - on faculty scale, or in smaller institution like UPEI.
One observation that stuck with me is that the mere word repository is passive, where we want to emphasize exposure. This is precisely our problem as a whole in moving the repository into an active part at the center of the academic research workflow, instead of a passive end point.
Finaly, the list of good examples started out with Cream of science! We tend to take it for granted here in the Netherlands, and focus on where we're stuck; it’s good to be reminded how well that has worked and still does.
Interim news from uMich Miracle project (Making Institutional Repositories A Collaborative Learning Environment).
Not very exciting yet, might change when they’ve accumulated more data (it’s a work in progress, five case studies of larger US institutions, widely varying in policy, age, technology).
Focus on “outcome instead of output”.
Focus on external measurements of success, instead of internal (ie number of objects etc). Harder to enumerate, less easy, but gets more honest results.
No comments:
Post a Comment