1. Building an Open and Information Rich Institution
Danny Kingsley and Sarah Shreeves
FSCI 2017
MONDAY

2. Getting Oriented (15 minutes)

3. Course outline: Monday Overview and getting started
Tuesday Advancing openness within an institution
Wed - Understanding the open and information rich university
Thurs - Case studies
Fri - How to take this back home

4. Who are we? Go to www.menti.com Use the code 43 34 60
Answer the questions!

5. Background

6. Self rating of knowledge and skills

7. Aspirations from the course

8. What (we hope) you will get out of it:
Think strategically and comprehensively about openness and your institution
Articulate the ‘why’ of openness for a variety of stakeholders within an institution
Articulate how information related to research and outputs flows through an institution and understand challenges to this flow of information
Understand the practicalities of delivering open access to research outputs and research data management within an institution
Consider the technology, expertise, and resources required to support open research

9. How this course will work:
Activities
Discussion
Iterative
Feedback please!
We will serve as your facilitators more than instructors.

10. Expectations
Let’s make sure this is a safe environment to share information - if asked not to tweet / share something, please don’t!
Be conscious of dominating the conversation; there are lots of strong opinions in this space!
Move around in activities so you are working with different people throughout the course.
We will have regular breaks, but take comfort breaks as you need them.
Give us feedback when something isn’t working or clear.

11. Information and where to find it
All course materials will be available at: (Please add materials you create in the course to this folder)
Twitter for overall institute - #FSCI (Twitter feed is on the website if you are not a Tweeter)
Question - Do we want a specific Twitter hashtag for this group? (#FSCIAM3)
Slack Team - ‘Force11sci’
Copy short URL

12. Introductions (30 minutes)

13. Speed dating! Find a person to speak to (that you have not met yet)
You each have 1 minute (60 seconds) to introduce yourself to each other
Then you will be asked to share with the group your new friend’s:
Name
Two interesting things about them

14. Problem Definition (50 minutes)

15. What are we trying to do here?
What is the problem we are trying to solve?

16. Notes from discussion
Concerned about advocating open and getting open more absorbed into the faculty culture. Nuts and bolts of librarians convincing faculty of something they don’t want to do
External pressures, and APC models don’t work
Collaboration and how to get all the stakeholders to work on this. Need for open communication.
Issues from users perspective of accessing information, and providing access to information
Policies and how to move it beyond the faculty senate - there needs to be consequences in the way policies are implemented.
Librarians are self contained and universities are really siloed
Sometimes the Executive think this is a Library issue - getting stakeholders together is hard
Need to involved people’s time well - many people are new in this role
Raising awareness and education for people involved in this process.
Consistent messaging
Building incentives and minimising the administrative burden - integrate within the culture of a space
Prioritisation of what you are doing
Ensuring we have the right people with the right expertise to do this rather than drag people in. How do yu get the people above you to understand you need more stuff?

37. Problem Definition (small group activity - 30 minutes)
From

38. Problem definition - 1
Ways to motivate faculty towards openness - help if can get administration as champions for the voice. Internal cultural shift towards using internal promotion focusing on openness. Targeting faculty by money or fame - give them bragging rights - first and out there. Shaming people? Money issues as a motivator. Funding agencies - a big issue is timesaving. The issue is complexity.
How do we frame the argument? Cultural and country differences in outputs. Want to respect publishing industry. The public is a driver. Medical information being open is an example of that.
Studies on why open access is beneficial - evidence based practice that this is creating results. Not as many as we would like- can we share citations together?

39. Problem definition - 1

40. Problem definition - 2
How do we make openness relevant? Publishers, the end users and researchers. Social and cultural factors, the complex nature of academic culture and its behaviour and the push towards tenure. Considering the structure of our institutions. The perceptions of quality. Don’t want to make too much work.
What is the total cost of ownership. Copyright issues - PhD students are required to deposit their thesis in and they get lots of downloads so their contribution to the academic community is positive.
Incentives- how do you make openness meaningful. Do we have to have an OA policy at the institution level to make that happen.
OA mandates- this is not forcing people to do something rather providing tools they need.

41. Problem definition 2

42. Problem definition - 3
Recognising different perspectives across the institution. Move those conversations forwards - with everyone including with librarians and archivists. Sometimes move conversation forward in terms of understanding why OA is important.
Cultural factors - specific to faculty disciplines. Funding at governmental level and otherwise is a huge factor
Location of the institutional work is a major player. Open data - sometimes if someone requests OA to something the location of the requestor can be a barrier.\
Reproducibilty, there are many factors.
OA evidence that it is cited more. And anecdotal evidence that closed communities suffer
What ways can we find to reward researchers, helping researchers understand. Need to include this in every discussion we have about openness with the faculty

43. Problem definition 3

44. Problem definition - 4
Repositories are an underutilised resource - the repository is a free way of publishing OA without APC. And they allow more ability for impact tracking - for both the author and the institution.
Cultural issues - promotion and tenure and what constitutes a valuable piece of scholarship. Researchers tend to be outward looking and administrators tend to look institutionally.
OA takes time and money
Concerns about competition and scooping. Also real reasons why people can’t go OA - commercial in confidence etc
Some publishers are willing to work with repositories - Florida & Elsevier, MIT & Springer demonstrating collective research impact
Deposit workflows- who is responsible for this? Should we even be doing this? Are we actually going after the right things. Why are the research administration not taking a bigger role?
Library can provide training and administration around helping people to work openly.

45. Problem statement 4

46. Problem definition - 5
Trying to motivate behaviour change. How to communicate and come up with compelling information. This is a problem on being an effective communicator. Includes librarians and other researchers.
Whose responsibility is this?
A barrier is individualism to protect themselves and their labs. Differences between disciplines ‘this doesn’t apply to me’. With some disciplines if you have been successful -they do not see openness as being necessary to them. The ‘you first’ syndrome.
Evidence, what counts as reproducibiity is open to discussion. We still know there is something better we can do without getting sidetracked.

47. Problem definition 5

48. Common themes
OA takes time and money - and the tools are annoying. Reduce complexity - make it easy administratively
Recognise difference - one size does not fit all, cultural and country norms in publishing and prestige
Motivation - what are the incentives? How can we demonstrate benefit?
Need for advocacy and training of various stakeholders including within library
Repositories the repository is a free way of publishing with impact tracking - for both the author and the institution.
Whose responsibility is this?
Need for a collective list of benefits of open access - references. Zotero

49. Closing Discussion (10 minutes)