Break-out session on CRIS/repository community at RSP conference

One of the five topics that we covered through smaller group break-out discussion sessions at last week's RSP conference was all about how the CRIS and repository community might want to communicate. This nicely tied in with the end of Simon Kerridge's keynote speech about how linked systems mean that more communication between research office and repository managers is essential. The session's title was 'Community and Communications to Support the CRIS Model' and it was basically a facilitated discussion around whether this new CRIS->repository world requires new thinking and new means to share the knowledge and experience that's out there. Are existing discussion forums or mailing lists sufficient to the task?

I started by asking each of the two sets of people who had chosen to join this topic how they had found out about the RSP event itself, which lead on to an interesting look at which lists different types of people (RO = research office, RM = repository managers/library, IT = technology people) belonged to.

group 1:


group 2:


There was a bit of overlap but no obvious one existing place that all the groups who now are involved when CRIS systems (traditionally coming from the research office) are linked to institutional repositories (usually run by the library) or the link is under consideration - except perhaps for the JISC-repositories list, which is rather wide-ranging and already quite busy.

Then we had some discussions around open vs closed lists (the RePosit Google discussion group is now open to all new members) and the dangers of 'flaming'. We talked about how to avoid list fatigue - perhaps by using technical solutions to join existing lists via keywords into a super-list rather than creating anything new - and heard with interest that ARMA and UKcorr lists may be joining forces. Also, how to maintain the informality of a group - such as that which has helped make the RePosit Google group approachable for queries and discussions? Plus there were those who felt that existing communication was sufficient without needing anything else, using Twitter or Google searches to find individual sources of extra information - or just the willingness to pick up the phone and talk to someone in person.

All in all, some interesting discussion - but how to take this forward? In the absence of one obvious person who is so motivated to set up and run a CRIS/repository community, which is the body to run with the idea? In our discussions, the consensus seemed to be some combination of RSP/JISC and ARMA was our best bet.


posted by: Lizzie Dipple

RePosit at yesterday's RSP conference

As has been mentioned in a number of recent posts on this blog, the RePosit project was very much involved in the RSP conference entitled 'Repositories and CRIS: working smartly together', which took place yesterday, Tuesday 19th July, at the East Midlands Conference Centre in Nottingham. We had an hour-and-a-half slot in the morning, during which we facilitated five interactive break-out discussion sessions (as listed below) and gave a series of presentations around those topics to share some of the findings from the project. The audience was a good mix of repository managers/library staff and people from the research office, with a sprinkling of IT and others, and we had some interesting discussions. There will be individual blog posts about each of the discussion topics in more detail - to follow.

1. JOINING SYSTEMS: WHO OWNS/ADMINS/LINKS THE SYSTEMS TOGETHER? In a blended landscape does it matter whether or not you have a separate repository? What are the implications for pre-existing repository services of the CRIS+repository model? How is legacy data handled? How do the two systems complement each other? Who owns the system?

2. 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?

3. ENGAGING YOUR RESEARCHERS. What will motivate researchers to upload to the repository using the CRIS? What is special about it? How do we SELL it? Carrot or stick?

4. DEMONSTRATING THE BENEFITS: ADVOCACY STRATEGY IN A CRIS->REPOSITORY WORLD. Any advocacy strategy begins with identifying stakeholders and advocacy methodology. In a CRIS-to-repository model are there people, issues and tools to consider that are different to other deposit models, and if so, how to we deal with them?

5. COMMUNITY AND COMMUNICATIONS TO SUPPORT THE CRIS MODEL. Does the CRIS->repository world require new thinking? How best do we share the knowledge and experience? Are existing forums sufficient?

posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Notes from project team Skype call on 28th April 2011

At the end of last month, the team got together – virtually – for one of our regular Skype calls to keep each other up to date with progress and share experiences. The formation of smaller groups within the team to look after individual parts of the project work seems to be going well: for instance, the group looking after the survey have made great strides – and in the call we made the final tweaks to the core survey questions. Subsequent to the call, we now have an agreed core survey, which has been set up on BOS for the first site (Exeter University) and there will be further news about the survey in later posts. Another area of project work that has been active recently is the planning of our dissemination event – which is to take place within an all-day event hosted by RSP in Nottingham.

Here are the notes from the call.


posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Repositories in a new CRIS landscape - some discussion points from the RSP Winter School

Six weeks on from the RSP Winter School and time for some reflection on a few Reposit-relevant points we discussed at this very useful event.

1. Workflow. Our current Symplectic to Eprints workflow (Leeds) 'surrenders' control of metadata to the central research management system. Surrender may not be the right word, but we're used to having complete control within EPrints so it feels that way. It’s certainly an important workflow question to consider – and not all institutions have come to the same conclusion. If metadata is incorrect, is it fixed in Symplectic or fixed in EPrints? We fix in Symplectic. This means the Symplectic and EPrints records are in synch, but it means repository staff need to interact with two systems. I’m not suggesting this as an ideal model but it’s our reality at the moment. Where does your ‘master’ record live? Is it/ can it be locked down?
   
   Symplectic is now our only deposit route for White Rose Research Online content for University of Leeds. Will it continue to be? Are there other places we need to capture deposits?
   
   Overall, as CRIS/repository models roll out, I’d really like to see some more discussion around the pros and cons of different workflows and how life can be made easier for both depositors and repository staff. One comment that stuck with me was the high expectations researchers have (well, I suppose we all have) that systems should be simple and easy to use. Obvious – but difficult to achieve. And how do we (should we?) avoid systems which are simpler for the depositor but result in extra work for someone else further along the workflow (library/repository staff)?
   
   
2. CRIS/Repository landscape. We discussed the importance of being aware of – or even pre-empting – the CRIS discussion at your institution. If you’re not involved already, does this mean the discussion has started without you? .. or should you be starting the discussion?
   
   We’ve discussed for many a long year how institutional repositories fit with other repositories – arXiv; SSRN; RePec; UKPMC; ESRC etc – do we push data to them or pull data from them or both? Is the mechanism for this located within the CRIS, the repository, somewhere else? I was very happy to see progress with Repository Junction; we really need something to help rationalise multiple location deposit.
   
   
3. Relationship with Research Office. Knowing a/the key person can make all the difference. If you’re not already talking to your research office, start! We have several areas of shared interest even if we don’t always talk the same language.
   
   
4. Repository visibility vs invisibility. Not a new question, but should the repository be high profile and obvious – or so well integrated depositors don’t even know it’s there? One questions was raised – if everything is deposited via a CRIS won’t the CRIS get credit for all the behind the scenes work the library and repository staff may do? I don’t think this is an issue – or is it? Seems to me there’s a quid pro quo here – the Library is a trusted, established service – and I think Library involvement increases the credibility of CRIS type systems with researchers. (Discuss?!) Of course, this only works if the depositors know there’s a Library role – be it quality control, copyright advice, copyright checking, version advice, file format advice, preservation, user testing. From the Library perspective we need to understand our new role but we also need to publicise this – not something we’re always good at.