Advocacy session at Exeter

I forgot to mention in my previous blog that we recently gave a presentation on our research repository, ERIC, to Associate Directors of Research at Exeter. We discovered there was quite a low level of awareness of the repository and what it’s for – for example, that depositing in the repository often allows a researcher to fulfil his/her obligation to the research funder. They were interested to hear about the integration with Symplectic and generally in favour of it (although some still queried the amount of time it would take to deposit). This led on to a discussion about Open Access and the feasibility of imposing a mandate for both research publications and primary data. There was a lot of support for a mandate but also recognition that a change in culture, especially in certain disciplines, would be necessary for it to work. The Open Access agenda will, again, be picked up and taken forward by the Open Up! project mentioned previously.

Jill Evans

University of Exeter

Update from Exeter

Work on integration is continuing at Exeter. We’ve made significant progress, for example Repository Tools 1.3 has now been installed but we’ve also hit a number of unexpected technical hitches that have held things up a little.

Testing has been going on for a few weeks, initially with the Engineering department, which has produced some very useful feedback. Crosswalks and collection mapping have also been tested extensively and we’re now working our way through the list of identified issues. We’re still not sure when we’ll be in a position to go live but we’re moving nearer to that point!

We’re looking at ways of getting publications into ERIC quickly as soon as Repository Tools goes live. For example, some funds have been put aside for a postgraduate to deposit the top four ‘favourites’ for all researchers participating in the REF in ERIC via Symplectic. We’re also aware of a number of publications collections around the University that are, with a little copyright checking, ready to be uploaded.

Advocacy planning is ongoing but we’ve had to scale back some of the activities planned for Open Access Week as it’s unlikely Repository Tools will be working by then. We’ll still be doing general awareness-raising, however, and will follow up with our own OA week when the integration’s been completed.

Some good news – we were successful in our recent bid to the JISC for funds to continue our pilot research data management project. The new project, called Open Up! for the moment, will start in October and will, amongst other activities, look at embedding use of repositories in the research lifecycle. We will have a full time advocacy officer for 12 months, picking up from and building on RePosit advocacy work. We’re aiming for much closer integration of our repositories and deposit procedures, particularly the linking of research publications with the underlying primary research data. So Symplectic will continue to be a focus of advocacy work but through Open Up! rather than RePosit, which will soon come to an end.

If you’d like further information about our integration work or Open Up! email me: jill.evans@exeter.ac.uk

Jill Evans

University of Exeter

JOINING SYSTEMS: who owns, administers, and links the systems together?

When planning our discussion topic for the RSP event Working Smartly Together, we assumed that people participating in the discussion group would already have a link between a CRIS and repository system - or be well on with planning the link. We also hoped that people would be further down the line in joining systems and could share their experiences with those still thinking about a potential CRIS/repository link.

In fact, to our surprise, the majority of group members were still at an early stage: some considering a CRIS/repository link, some planning to expand an existing repository to offer CRIS type functions and others just interested in the topic but with no current link plans. Although the CRIS/Repository model is becoming more common, institutions that have followed the process through and achieved full integration between the two systems are still few and far between.

Quickly shifting gears from the initial breakout group plan, we discussed some of the potential benefits and challenges of the new model.

Findings are below (transcribed from flip charts and added commentary):

Benefits

• Potentially greater deposit: whether this is true or not depends on where you are starting from with your existing repository. Some are well embedded, but others have struggled to become part of everyday researcher workflows.

• One stop shop: single place of deposit but also a way to draw together many strands of research information. A CRIS can be enhanced by an OA platform and the high standards of data curation which come with it; the repository can be complemented by the administrative data in the CRIS.

• CRIS+repository may be a good model to support researcher compliance with funder OA and reporting requirements.

• CRIS benefits from repository visibility – research becomes more discoverable.

• Web page feeds may include publication lists with links to repository content - but also grants, expertise, activities, impact etc.

• Repository usage stats could be fed back to the CRIS. As well as usage, stats could show non-OA-depositors what traffic they’re missing.

Risks / challenges

• OA takes a back seat.

• Academics don’t care about the depositing system – it’s just another admin system to them. Maybe this doesn’t matter. And it’s not an issue that’s limited to the CRIS+repository model. But perhaps academics are less likely to engage with OA aspects of a CRIS if they don’t see the relevance to their own subject discipline and research.

• REF – a useful driver - but too much REF focus could lead to fewer OA deposits and more limited engagement with repository systems.

• Why have two sets of metadata? Is the repository just a file store? Does it matter?

• Data quality – building the publication database within a CRIS tends to involve importing data from a number of different sources. E.g. Thomson Web of Science, departmental databases, individual publication lists in EndNote, BiBTeX etc. Inevitably there is duplication and a range of data quality issues. Is it worth tidying the records up? Who does this? Is there any resource to do this? Is surfacing publication data on researcher web pages sufficient incentive for them to rectify any issues with their own data?

Wishlist

• The model helps with research publication and research data curation – funder data is tied in with compliance requirements, depositors are advised on these & there is automatic deposit or notification to required external subject / data repositories.

• Effective data exchange between systems & common data standards – probably CERIF.

• Crosswalks between systems are easy to set up and readily tailorable.

• Relevant support departments work together to create an effective system (Research Office, Library, IT, Staff Training). Effective governance mechanisms are put in place.

• Uptake by some researchers exerts peer pressure on others, raising overall take up.

Conclusion:
So long as you have an effective system to deposit, describe, disseminate and preserve you research information, it may not matter too much what the underlying architecture looks like. However, there are many practical issues to be tackled – particularly if you have pre-existing systems which must be linked or phased out – when introducing a CRIS+repository architecture.

Many thanks to the attendees as the comments provided the project with insights that will be written up in the final project report.

submitted by: Rachel Proudfoot and Jodie Double

Repositories and CRIS / working smartly together - report from conference 19th July

I led the workshops on CRIS/repository advocacy. Do you advocate as separate systems or as one system? If the CRIS and Repository are integrated, do you need to brand the repository, is the focus on the CRIS or is a combination approach best?

The 2 groups all had different CRIS / repository models, some institutions had both and some were integrated/ some not. Other institutions had just a repository or just a CRIS so it was excellent to get a wide variety of views.

Key feedback :

• the concept of the one stop shop so if staff are working in one system, be it the CRIS or repository, then advocacy was focused on the one system as the place to do all the necessary tasks.


• that institutions can often put in artificial barriers between systems, often relating to the organizational unit that manages them and in terms of language and terminology


• researchers don't care which system is doing what, they just need to know what they have to do


• researchers want clarity with support so joint sessions, singe points of contact are key


• repositories can provide real life statistics which can be used in advocacy sessions to promote the repository


• the REF is a key driver for research strategy at many unis and is also having an effect on people's perception of the repository, on submission and Open Access. Some institutions reported that discussions were being had on what is good enough quality to be deposited into the repository and a suggestion that only REFable material should be submitted. Should the repository be for all research or just as a shop window for the highest rated research? Clearly this raises questions around the drivers for submission which may vary according to stakeholder group


• In general, most of the institutions were giving their repository a brand and identity

I then weaved this feedback gained on the day into my presentation which provided a case study of how the questions were approached at Plymouth University.

My conclusion, which was backed up by the conference participants, is that researchers and senior university management want clarity and demonstrations of coherence and of support for individual and university goals.
The branding and advocacy strategy needs to be flexible and responsive to the audience and messages.
It is perhaps not a question of deciding a single focus on CRIS or the Repository or integration but a question of deciding when and how to apply a varying focus, depending on your audience/message.

Nicola Cockarill, Plymouth University

What's happening at Exeter

We still don’t have a definite date for the roll out of Repository Tools here but crosswalks and collection mapper seem to be working so we’re almost ready for testing with users, hopefully starting next week or the week after.

An important breakthrough for us is that automated emailing of depositors notifying them that their submission has either been approved or rejected is now working. Thanks to Ian Wellaway for his hard work on this – if anyone else is interested we’d be happy to share what we (or rather Ian) did.

I’ve started planning advocacy activities in more detail in the hope that we have to be ready to go some time soon.

• We’ve identified a number of testers from different subject areas – the College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences are particularly keen as the new EPSRC open access ruling means they have to put all their funded research publications on OA starting September.
• I’m having a series of meetings with the Academic Support Consultants to plan advocacy in the Colleges from September – hoping to get a clear picture of what they are able to do, to whom, when, and what supporting materials they will need me to create for them (adapting RePosit materials).
• We’ve been invited to give a presentation to Associate Deans of Research in mid-September – a really great opportunity initiated by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research and Knowledge Transfer, who is a real supporter of OA. These are obviously key people when it comes to influencing researchers in the various Colleges.
• I’m aiming for a big repositories push during OA Week in October, plugging RT using RePosit materials at various events that I’m in the process of planning.
• Have started work on an OA web site to be launched in OA week.
• Seeing our design studio this week to talk about commissioning some UoE repository leaflets – to be used alongside the RePosit materials.
• Started work on a Library ‘repositories@exeter’ web page providing a single point of access to repositories & Repository Tools, news, events, training materials, advice etc. – currently info is buried in the Library pages and difficult to find – this r@e link will appear prominently on the Library home page: http://as.exeter.ac.uk/library/
• Working on content for a new course for PGRs ‘Getting yourself known: how to enhance your research profile’ – this will include a demo of Repository Tools.
• Will be doing training with Academic Support Consultants after testing is completed.
• Have started to use Twitter to alert people to repository developments.

We'll be doing more, but this is just to start with – I’ll post more as we start to make progress. If anyone has any comments or suggestions please let me know: jill.evans@exeter.ac.uk

posted by: Jill Evans

Advocacy materials

These are the advocacy materials developed for Keele University and are currently being distributed around the campus to raise awareness

Poster:

Leaflet (2 sided)

An editable version of these will be made available for other Universities to use, as part of the outputs from the REPOSIT project

Ellie James
Keele University

Digital preservation and self deposit

Advocacy and outreach surrounding RePosit will hopefully increase deposits through the connectors. The exact numbers and scale is YTD but what we do know for certain is that user generated files bring digital preservation and long-term access issues with them. While a vast majority of the files will be ok, can we be certain all the files are healthy and reusable for the future? How do we automate file verification to free up repository staff time and resources? All very exciting questions, challenges and issues surrounding increased deposits both from external users and content creating internally.

The AQuA project is investigating these issues and more:

AQuA project, a JISC funded collaboration between: University of Leeds, University of York, British Library, and Open Planets Foundation will have project outputs that can be implemented in repositories to assist with the growing list of file issues.

Future postings on how the tools can assist repositories will be posted after the 3 day London event 13-15 May 2011. Outcomes from the Leeds AQuA Event held in April are on the AQuA wiki.

posted by Jodie Double

How do you know when you have achieved increased engagement?

Way back at the start of the project, one of the aims we set ourselves as project partners was to be able to demonstrate increased engagement with repositories as a result of our simplified deposit model. In order to show increased engagement, we needed to be able to calculate numbers of unique depositors (so who is doing the uploading), but this wasn't the simplest data to be able to extract.

DSpace doesn't have a report with which to provide this data, and it isn't possible to extract it from the Elements database. However, we knew that when an item was uploaded, along with the metadata for the item and the file, data about who had made the submission was entered into the dc.description.provenance field. How to get at this and turn it into useful numerical data took a little time to work out.

Our IT Services systems administrator performed a search within DSpace looking for matching text strings within the dc.description.provenance field. Once he had this, he provided me with a (very much tidied up) text file which I was able to import into spreadsheet software to begin turning into numerical values. Since the data we wanted was cumulative, it didn't take long to make the appropriate calculations (especially since the number of depositors is relatively small at the moment).

This was a messy process, with some risk of inaccuracies because of the manual extraction process, fine as an interim whilst something better is investigated perhaps (hello DSpace developers?), and I do have to wonder if there is an easier way to get at the data. It also occurs to me that this time consuming process might work for one-off data extractions, but would be unsustainable over longer periods for regular collection of data. However, we do now have statistics on how many people are actually engaging with our repository (not to pre-empt the final report of the project but: July 2010 = 24, April 2011 = 61), and this gives us some evidence of how well we're doing; not only in terms of new users, but also with sustained engagement.

With many thanks to my IT colleague, David Goddard, for handling the extraction and cleaning up of the data.

Sarah Molloy (Queen Mary)

A Queen Mary update

In recent weeks, the repository here at Queen Mary has been having a bit of work done 'under the bonnet'. In preparation for a proposed official launch during this month of 'May-ing', we have upgraded DSpace from version 1.5.2 to version 1.6.2, and upgraded Repository Tools into the bargain. Top marks to the IT guru for having achieved this without a hitch (he was somewhat smug).

Elsewhere in Research Publications world at QM, we have recently launched a public 'shop window' of our research output. Research Publications will eventually link to Queen Mary Research Online, is already automatically updated every day (overnight) and is proving somewhat popular with our academics and administrators alike who want to link to it from department websites. We'll be monitoring the traffic to/through this site over the coming weeks and months to see what impact it has on exposing research outputs more widely, and whether it too could drive engagement with Open Access.

In a related matter, we are now working with departments to provide data from PubLists (our local name for the Symplectic Elements system) to departments to populate their own academic web pages. This is a very big deal here, with lots of academic staff keen to have this set up quickly (no pressure then). Again, this will provide a direct link to full content in QMRO, so this could be an additional driver for engagement but it's early days at the moment.

The major focus for me over May and June is to begin seriously promoting and advocating: Open Access, self deposit, repositories and in particular QMRO, using the model that we've adopted here to demonstrate the ease with which this can be achieved.

Sarah Molloy (Queen Mary, University of London)

Progress report from University of Plymouth

An update on Pearl, UoP’s repository, we are currently working hard to solve some technical issues, with the Symplectic collection mapper. Sessions are booked in May ready for advocacy and I am working on guides and the supporting documentation. As Pearl has a self submission workflow, I am writing a Romeo guide for academics, including advice on the publisher policies and how to action the various conditions and points within the policies. The early sessions will provide good feedback from the academics both on the integration and the documentation. May is really the last window of opportunity to do advocacy and get staff to use the system so May is a key focus.

However to be able to run a full advocacy programme and get academics submitting into Pearl via Symplectic, the integration between Symplectic and DSpace needs to be working. There are a number of key dependencies eg that UoP's technical issues are fixed and knowing that with Plymouth's/Exeter's shared Symplectic service, that both repositories can run together.

It is a case of continuing to book the sessions and being flexible to either demo or use screenshots to start to raise awareness about Pearl and continue to work with UoP/UoE/Symplectic colleagues to get the integration working as soon as possible.

Nicola Cockarill
University of Plymouth

JISC Repository Deposit Programme Meeting - 1st March

Last week RePosit was represented at the JISC Repository Deposit Programme meeting in Birmingham. Under the supervision of Balvair Notay, JISC manager for the Deposit projects, the following projects provided updates on their progress:

• DepositMO
• DURA
• Kultivate
• Open Access Repository Repository Junction (OA-RJ)
• Sword v2
• Sonex

As well as providing an opportunity for the projects to learn more about the work of each other, we were all also asked to explore three key questions and to report back, both at the meeting and via blog posts. So, below, are the three points, and my thoughts on them for RePosit!

What actions are required for the success of your project? What are the indicators?

These are based around the core deliverable of advocacy, ensuring the right level of engagement, to the right audience at the right time - moving from the planning of advocacy to the actual delivery and the use of materials developed so far. The delivery of the technical solutions for each partner institution also remains key. The indicators would be increased deposit and a correlation with the release of the embedded deposit tool. More broadly, an increased understanding of deposit, and the reasons for it, would also be an indicator of success.

What strategies are required to spread good practice?

Our strategies include the provision of advovacy materials (including institutional strategies), engagement with other projects and organisations (such as Kultivate and RSP), the provision of this very blog and ongoing testing and evaluation of project outputs.

How are you going to feed data for the evaluation?

RePosit is perhaps fortunate among the projects in that it can gather quantitative data via the monthly repository statistics collection, and can monitor this in relation to the release of embedded deposit tools, and the effect this may have on deposits. However, it is also important to collect qualitative data, via surveys and other similar activity, as a change of culture, of mindset, among academics is also an important output. The project will also make the data available to Evidence Base.

In summary, the programme meeting provided an excellent opportunity to meet the other projects, share good practice and mull over common issues.

For my part, I managed to avoid being photographed, but no such luck for Richard! He can be seen assisting Kultivate with their afternoon report in a very informative blog from the SONEX project.

Posted by: Ian Tilsed

Carrots & Sticks - soliciting engagement

The recent meeting in Leeds, where presentations were delivered to an invited audience of academics, highlighted the ever present issue of 'getting users onboard' or, to put it another way, ensuring 'buy-in' to a project or development. We all know that the involvement of the key stakeholders is essential to the success of an endeavour - if they are not an integral part, or the tool or service being delivered has no real 'application' in their eyes, the exercise is destined to fail.

A key part of the advocacy work being carried out in RePosit relates to this essential topic. With a system like Symplectic, for instance, the main 'touch point' or 'driver' is invariably different for each module or component. Whilst there may be an over-arching institutional or strategic driver (improved visibility of research etc.), the key deliverables of modules are often more granular or specific - supporting pillars of the overall deliverable. Therefore, our advocacy plans seek to identify the key deliverables ('killer connections', if you will) for academics, and to build on them, to ensure effective take up of the embedded repository tools.

For us at Exeter this is probably our third advocacy exercise around our research information management system. The initial rollout (about which I'm often asked to discuss or talk) was fortunate in that we had several key connections. We had central institutional support (via our DVC for research), the project tied in with an existing internal research process (which was predominantly paper based) and we added value by facilitating the re-use of the publications data for other applications. Furthermore, three academic schools worked with us to pilot the implementation before wider rollout - a key point.

The second implementation, around professional activities and esteem data, is currently in progress. One of the pilot schools has, again, been at the centre of the work, in part because of an immediate and direct application of the data that could gathered. Whilst this early engagement has been very productive, the point of connection is not one, unlike previously, that can be used to drive a wider rollout. After much work, and a connection arising from a chance conversation, we now believe that we've identified an institution wide driver upon which to build - one where we can, once again, appeal to the academic by facilitating the re-use of the gathered data and, ultimately, saving effort.

The implementation of the repository tool is our third. Through the RePosit work, our advocacy plan has identified the key drivers for an institution wide roll out. Once again part of the appeal is the simplification of an administrative process, a reduction in effort for the users, and a re-use of data. At Exeter we are now in the process of connecting again with one of our original pilot schools - driven in part by a specific requirement that they have, for which repository tools may have the answer.

From our perspective at Exeter, the willingness of several of the academic schools to work with us has been a significant factor in successful implementations. However, we do not underestimate how difficult this is to achieve. Identifying the 'holy grail' of the 'killer connection' remains key, and can take time.

In the advocacy materials for RePosit, the project now believes that it has identified the key deliverables to academics and is working on the language and style to ensure that connection. The presentations at Leeds helped us enormously in refining this, but more feedback is always welcome!

Posted by: Ian Tilsed

Advocacy presentations

A key project task has been the creation of a bank of advocacy slides that can act as a generic resource for anyone to reuse in their institution. The project team worked together to draw up 2 pilot presentations, one for senior management/academics and the second for the researchers.
These pilots were then delivered to a group of academics and library staff from the University of Leeds and we asked for their feedback. This was a really valuable exercise to roadtest the pilot presentations.
Key messages from the feedback:

• Must have evidence and examples to back up statements eg around citations
• Presentations were too long and needed condensing
• Strong advocacy points were "quick and easy", "one place one deposit" "raises profile" (both individually and as an institution).
• Hot topics - copyright, versions, external/subject repositories, internationalization, how others access repository contents. It was felt that the "public" aspect of access would be more relevant if phrased as "practitioners". Strong view that researchers would want to know "what is in it for them" and this was echoed at the rsp winter school.

It was clear to the project team that whilst we had the basis of the presentations, more work needed to be done especially around the production of "supporting evidence". Also reinforced was the idea that the presentations would need to be more tailored to each institution depending on such factors as maturity of repository/CRIS and particular drivers. However a key aspect of the project outcome is that the slides need to be reusable by other HEIs.

So to achieve this generic but still tailored approach, project partners are going to take the pilot slides and tailor them to their institution. These presentations will then be pooled along with the supporting evidence. Others can then see what points are being made, how they have been made and examples of supporting evidence. There has been other JISC work done on OA answers and this will be drawn upon as well as adding institution specific case studies.

I have completed the 2 presentations for UoP and I will be asking for feedback from the PVC for Research. I also mentioned Pearl, UoP's research repository at the end of a session about our CRIS and this generated lots of questions and comments on a variety of topics and so I know that having the body of supporting evidence will be essential. I see finalising the presentations as an ongoing process as UoP examples and facts are only going to be available after Pearl is launched plus the hot topics here at UoP will also be raised so they will need to be fully addressed.

Nicola Cockarill, Senior Subject Librarian, University of Plymouth

RSP winter school

The RSP winter school took place 9-11th February in the Lake District and was my first Repository Support Project event. I wanted to use the opportunity, as a new repository manager, to immerse myself in the repository world, meet other repository colleagues and to inform my work both here at the University of Plymouth and for RePosit.

Some of the main points I took away to reflect on:

• the variety of models eg commercial / in house, CRIS, no CRIS, standalone or connected repository. From one point of view, this means that there are less HEIs, then I thought, to share experience with but on the other hand, it also means that interest should be generated around the RePosit model and others can share and use the project partner's experiences.

• the concept of a shared CRIS, feeding to multiple repositories is another more unusual feature of the UoP setup and again other HEIs may wish to share our experiences

• discussions around the CRIS-repository model changing the concept of the IR (institutional repository) as an entity in itself and what you are promoting and whether that represents a challenge or an opportunity for repository managers. My personal view is that here at UoP, I will be promoting both the CRIS and the IR both in different ways to different stakeholder groups.

I liked the concept of the 3 components of deposit, use and advocacy:

1. Deposit - seamless deposit via the CRIS.
2. Access/preserve/report/feed - Senior management and research administrators - CRIS and IR
3. Discover - via the CRIS via the university's staff profile pages and the IR via search engines

So both the CRIS and IR will be promoted, just in different ways depending on the stakeholder and their interests. I feel, the RePosit model doesn't relegate the IR as an entity, the advocacy programme will communicate the benefits/uses of both the CRIS and the IR but in a targeted way and both will have a strong identity.

• Discussions around self deposit and mediation. UoP is launching with a self deposit model. Most of the HEIs appeared to using a mediated module. For RePosit, this means that the role of research administrators needs to be considered in the survey and advocacy materials

• advocacy themes - a key message was that advocacy needs to be sustained and repeated.

The message about "the researchers want to know what they can get out of deposit" resonated with me, and this echoed what the pilot presentations at Leeds fedback. Personally I feel that maybe the message of pure Open Access may resonate with some committed individuals but I feel that at UoP, I will be starting by advocating OA but badging it more as Open Access Lite so focusing on what depositing means for individuals and access to collaborators, peers and practitioners. This is promoting OA but in a context that researchers respond to. In time, as the IR matures, the message will develop, especially with further developments in OA. I believe that OA Lite is the most effective way to reach researchers to launch deposit whilst starting discussions which look at the full range of the OA concept with senior managers.

The event was very informative and enjoyable and I have returned with lots of contacts, ideas and most importantly, it has confirmed and underpinned the directions that I will take in the advocacy here at Plymouth.


Nicola Cockarill, Senior Subject Librarian, University of Plymouth

QMUL communication strategy, and a quick update

Along with colleagues in the other partner institutions, I have been working on an advocacy (or in Queen Mary's case a communication) plan. The plan comes in two parts, a strategic document identifying how and who, and a timeline of activities. Part one is below. I'm still drafting part two...

We're making progress with the repository, behind the scenes things are moving well and we're adding new content all the time. Researchers here at QMUL seem fine with the concept of uploading their content via our Elements interface, once they know what to do.

QMRO still hasn't been made public, a source of endless frustration for me, due largely to small bugs and configurations that need to be resolved and which it's proving difficult to find the time to for our IT people to fix. Things are looking up though. We have recently retained the services of DSpace consultancy firm @mire to help with developments, and our own project partner, Richard Jones, is off to see QMULs IT people, so the bugs and configs should hopefully be sorted really soon.

I'm already planning the launch party, so watch this space!

And here is the plan.

SMolloy Queen Mary, University of London

University of Exeter Advocacy Plan available

The University of Exeter has had a publications repository, ERIC (http://eric.exeter.ac.uk/exeter/), since 2007 but in common with many UK repositories after an initial surge of deposits tied in with advocacy submissions have dwindled save for a few loyal enthusiasts. The RePosit advocacy work is therefore a timely opportunity to re-think approaches to boosting repository content and engaging a range of stakeholders.

The UoE Advocacy Plan timetable is fairly detailed – we want the option of reaching as wide an audience as possible and in as many ways as possible. Some of the activities can be achieved quickly, for example, we have already included repository training in a new Deskside Training Service for academics and research postgraduates (we had our first taker last week!).

Others require long-term planning, such as including repository training in the Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Programme that all Postgraduate research students who teach are required to complete. Targeting new Postgraduates and early career researchers is high on our agenda – making sure that Symplectic/repository use is embedded in their research lifecycles and passed on in turn to their students.

We will try to use social media as much as possible - it’s cheap, easy, and has the potential to reach a range of people quickly. The aim is to adapt our message and method of delivery according to the audience we’re addressing: for a senior management group, we will take a more formal approach and perhaps focus our talk on economic benefits; for a group of librarians we might emphasise access and preservation. We’ll be using the generic advocacy materials produced during the RePosit project, tailoring them for our own particular needs.

We envisage the advocacy work kicked off by RePosit continuing far beyond the life of the project and forming a blueprint for an ongoing programme of promotional work.

Posted by: Jill Evans

Advocacy - some further thoughts

At our recent project meeting (more about that in a later post I'm sure) we spent much time testing, exploring and finalising the advocacy materials for the project. As part of that work we 'road tested' two presentations on willing academics from Leeds University. It was an excellent experience, which drew some astute comment and provided much food for thought.

I'm sure that the detail will be covered in a more comprehensive post, but some key points emerged:

• it's easier to identify and convey the end benefits (greater deposit to the repository) than the benefits of the actual process (utilising an existing process to address another);
• that whilst some audiences (e.g. senior managers) want to know about the broader benefits rather than the process per se, others (e.g. those actually submitting full text materials) are more likely to be concerned about the actual process and what it means for them.

We spent some time trying to articulate the essence of the process and the benefits in the form of a strapline, for use in the advocacy materials. Looking for inspiration from the world of advertising, we recalled a certain campaign about a universal shampoo and it triggered some useful 'brainstorming'.

However, thinking further about that particular advertising campaign I think we can learn much from it as it addressed the two key aspects identified above, with the strapline ("Wash & Go") and the commentary (why use two bottles when you need only use one) highlighting both the ultimate benefits and the improved process.

Whether this thinking is on the right lines, or not, we can't deny that the 'Wash & Go' campaign has been a massive success! So, why use two systems to record and deposit your outputs, when you need only use one?!

How does our progress match the original project plan?

We are almost at the halfway stage in the RePosit project, having officially started on 20th July 2010, and with our next big project team meeting tomorrow, it's a good time to pause and take stock. So how is the project progressing and how does that match up to the original timeline we gave ourselves in the project plan work packages?

There are five project outputs in the plan: open-access training materials, training strategies, user survey report, advocacy strategies and a user community space. What became clear as we started fleshing out our approach to advocacy planning is that the line between advocacy and training is actually a blurry one and that it doesn't make sense to keep them apart. Therefore, each of the partner institutions now has an advocacy plan (i.e. a strategy document) which covers all types of communication around the subject of repository use - both advocacy activities and training activities. A short high-level presentation to a pro vice-chancellor is clearly an advocacy activity, but is a discussion with a group of researchers about the reasons to embrace the repository (via the RMS link) with a demo of how to do it at the end also advocacy or has it turned into a training workshop? In a similar way to how the advocacy and training strategies have ended up morphing into one, the materials we're producing have turned out to be a mixture of both training and advocacy materials. At the moment we have the content of the advocacy materials (as per the schedule), and our friends in the QMUL Creative Services team are producing some fantastic draft designs to make everything look slick, and really be useable.

One area where we are a little behind schedule is with creating the user survey. According to the work packages timeline, we aimed to create a draft survey by the start of January, having done some testing in November and December, and thus be ready to start this month. Unfortunately, the amount of input required to get the advocacy strategies in place meant that we had to postpone the work on the survey, since it was less time critical at that point. However, this will not have an impact on the overall project outputs because we have given the survey top billing in tomorrow's project meeting, with feedback on our ideas from real-world invited guests the following day, so we will still produce the survey in time for when the advocacy and training activities start in earnest.

Given that the RePosit project has an ambitious timeline of just one year from start to finish, I am very pleased that we are managing to keep the pace going, despite the pulls of other work commitments.


posted by: Lizzie Dipple

First advocacy plans made public

One of the key milestones along the path of the RePosit project for the individual partner HEIs is the creation of an advocacy plan for each institution (or review and updating of an existing plan within the RePosit framework). These plans describe the overall strategy for communications around awareness of, engagement with and deposit into the institutional open-access repositories (including specifically via the link from the CRIS/RMS), and these are the plans that will be followed for the second half of the project's life to hopefully produce the results we are anticipating - increased deposits and increased users. In some cases, the plans include the detailed timetable of activities that will be undertaken, in other cases these timetables are stored in a separate document - mainly because such detailed activities lists are by their nature more fluid and need to be revisited and updated regularly, in comparison with the overall advocacy strategy documents.

At the moment, those advocacy plans available to view are for the University of Plymouth, Keele University and the University of Leeds. Of course, these plans will potentially be revised as the project progresses and the experience at each institution grows.

All the plans have been drawn up individually but with the sharing of ideas and help across the whole project team. The plans also use the lessons learned from our literature review of previous JISC projects in and around this area.


posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Demonstration of Symplectic Elements and DSpace, 17th December 2010

After the meeting last week with Queen Mary Creative Services, I arranged to provide a demonstration of QMRO repository and PubLists, the local installations of the DSpace and Symplectic Elements systems, to the designers who will be working on our advocacy materials. It was hoped that this would give QMCS a better idea of how the systems worked, how they are connected, and why this is important.

I provided a comparison demonstration, showing how content would normally be entered into DSpace; how each field has to be populated manually, the file upload and permission granting process. I then showed them how items are deposited using the RePosit model. By doing this, it was easy to demonstrate how much quicker and simpler deposit is when the metadata is provided through a linked system, requiring only the file upload and permissions to be granted for deposit to be completed.

The demonstration helped to put the project and the systems into context for the designer, Dan Boom, and hopefully gave him some ideas of how to illustrate this in our materials.

Dan was also able to give me a short update on the progress made so far, that they have begun work to produce some project branding for us, and that they hope to have some early examples of these and other materials ready for our meeting in January 2011.

Sarah Molloy

Queen Mary, University of London