Annah Macha MPhil Student Department of Library & Information Science, UCT A/Prof Karin de Jager Centre for Information Literacy, UCT 2

 More institutions establishing IRs in SA  many documents need to be preserved, managed, & shared  IRs preserve institution’s intellectual property and increase institution’s visibility and prestige (Prosser, 2003:168) 3

 2002: national research strategy published  renewal in information services sector  SARIS Project: SA research institutes & university libraries were accessing world research literature at high costs  Framework for eResearch services to SA research community be created 4

 eResearch & innovation services be jointly funded projects coordinated at country level  2007: ASSAf inaugural meeting: beginning of open access movement in SA (Gray)  Initiatives were not successful  eIFL & the Mellon Foundation provided funding for starting up IR projects in SA. 5

 Mss & A of the UCT Libraries began digitizing selected material in 2001 (Dunlop and Hart: 2005)  Digitization projects based on the San photographs (1910 and the late 1920s)  San collection listed by UNESCO:documentary heritage of international importance  Other projects at UCT, instigated by individual departments e.g. Computer Science- 2003, Faculty of Law

 Interviews showed digital initiatives at UCT conducted at small scale: cost and staff resources  IR needed a budget for staffing, hardware and software and trained members of staff  From around 2006, repeated requests for University to budget for the start of an IR  In 2009, UCT Libraries obtained funding from the Carnegie Corporation - with WITS & UKZN $2.5 million over 3yrs 7

 New digitization unit was established, in charge of developing the IR  showcase UCT’s research  The UCT repository at present consists of: a. digital collections-1891 b. finding aids- 866 and c. theses and dissertations

 UP selected for comparative analysis with UCT: its well established. At present UP IR consists of 6621 materials  UP started as a pilot project in 2000 by:  2002 repository contained 39 theses and 26 dissertations  2003: policy adopted by Senate to make submission compulsory  based on the success UPeTD, in 2006 UP established UPSpace  UP also has OpenUP: a sub-collection of the larger UPSpace collection (Pienaar and Van Deventer: 2008) 9

 Identify important role players  Address issues of resources  Evaluate software that would make the IR an Open Access Initiative  Establish policy for the IR  Restructure library to accommodate change  Get a license 10

11

 At UP the IR governed by Senate approved policy  new roles and responsibilities for staff  UP registered with the ROAR, openDOAR, Google Scholar & DSpace  UCT created a policy for the submission of print & electronic theses  UCT is restructuring roles and responsibilities of its staff  UCT has to register with open access harvesters 12

1. Content Content recruitment is key: the core of the IR both born-digital and older repurposed digital materials “the larger the critical mass of documents in an IR, the more it will facilitate output measures.” (Westell, 2006: 216 ) 2. Use number of users, type of content used and nature of use (Harnad and McGovern: 2009). Webometrics- how many hits have been made from the repository and how many articles have been downloaded 13

 Submission “repository deposit activity measures” (Thomas: 2007)  Number of submissions  Frequency of submissions  Type of submitter  Participation of key stakeholders  Support  Constituent support  Financial support  Technical support 14

Advocacy informed awareness- “getting the right message to the right people with the tone and content varied by audience” (Johnson, 2007: 23) communication plan for advocacy campaign advocacy strategies addressing authors’ concerns 15

 Influence providing assistance to other institutions in the country, region and in the world Collaboration encouraged among IRs  Interoperability capability of a computer hardware or software system to communicate and work effectively with another system in the exchange of data (Reitz: 2006) Interoperability: metadata &format compliance Dublin Core metadata: OAI proposed OAI-PMH standards OAIster and other search engines, Google Scholar can harvest their contents 16

 Two IRs not similar  UP firstly ETD; then UPSpace & Open UP  UCT not focused on ETD alone: Special & Heritage collections  UCT will in future have ETD repository  UP: open source, UCT: proprietary software  UP as a benchmark: success  Influence 17

 IRs are important:  Collect & house  Preserve & archive research output  Enhance visibility & prestige of institution 18