Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback

From: Steve Hitchcock <sh94r_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:37:43 +0000

Talat has wonderful energy and enthusiasm for building his institution's
repository by means of advocacy, and Arthur presents clear evidence that
without a mandate there is an upper limit to the success of that approach.
Talat's best alternative, as for all repository managers in a similar
position, is the patchwork mandate.

The problem is that many, perhaps most, repository managers do not have the
levers for mandates. These discussions of practical repository issues,
whether it concerns mandates, copyright, really anything to do with policy,
appear to omit the key people, those who bear responsibility for the
institution's repository. They are:

1 The senior manager(s) who took the decision to introduce a repository
2 The manager within the part of the institution that is responsible for
managing the repository

They may or may not be the same person. They hold the keys to policy. But
who are they, and where are they? How does this relationship work, and how
much does it differ across institutions? What do they want from their IR? We
need to hear from them and find out what works best, for their benefit and
for others to follow.

Repository managers work within a framework determined, either actively or
passively, by 1 and/or 2, and it may not be a very comfortable place at all,
not least because 2 could be in a horribly conflicted or compromised
position too. I wonder if we are really aware of this reality.

Institutional mandates ultimately need to be authorised from the very top,
and much effort is being put into making those people aware of the issues.
But before we get there we have to understand the gap in the chain between
the most senior managers and the day-to-day repository manager. We have to
be more transparent about what is going on in that gap before we will see
management for the progress and benefit of repositories and the
institutions, rather than for IRs as awkward inconveniences to be tolerated
until the fuss dies down.

Repositories will not begin to reach out successfully to authors as
depositors - and this is what I think is behind the success of mandates too
- until they have clearly defined, effective management structures for
repositories within institutions. That is the essence of the institutional
repository, rather than the repository within the institution.

The institutional mandate is the affirmation of the *institutional*
repository.

Steve Hitchcock
IAM Group, School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: sh94r_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865
Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 12:55:15 GMT