https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxlbeayLWxeRWE5fOV9MRXhqLVU/view?usp=sharing
Tag Archives: Danny Kingsley
VALA2010 Session 3 Kingsley
The advocacy and awareness imperative: a repository overview
VALA 2010 CONCURRENT SESSION 3 – Repositories
Tuesday 9 February 2010, 10:50 – 11:20
Persistent URL: http://www.vala.org.au/vala2010-proceedings/vala2010-session-3-kingsley
Danny Kingsley
Manager, Scholarly Communication and ePublishing, Australian National University
http://www.anu.edu.au
Please tag your comments, tweets, and blog posts about this session: #VALA2010
VALA2010 Session 3 Kingsley Paper 49.57 KB- VALA2010 Session 3 Kingsley Presentation 114.19 KB
Abstract
Populating institutional repositories poses a significant challenge. This paper provides an assessment of awareness and advocacy techniques that have been used in established institutional repositories in Australia and internationally. In summary, a repository policy is essential. Mandates work better than simply recommending repository use. It helps to make depositing as easy as possible and sort out copyright, by providing staff to work with the academics. Contacting academics individually is more effective than printed publicity material. The repository is more useful to the academic if it relates to their regular workflow.
VALA2008 Session 3 Kingsley
Repositories, research and reporting: the conflict between institutional and disciplinary needs
VALA 2008 CONCURRENT SESSION 3: Repositories
Tuesday 5 February 2008, 11:55 – 12:30
Persistent URL: http://www.vala.org.au/vala2008-proceedings/vala2008-session-3-kingsley
Danny Kingsley
PhD Scholar, Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University
http://www.anu.edu.au
Please tag your comments, tweets, and blob posts about this session: #VALA2008
VALA2008 Session 3 Kingsley Paper 80.24 KB
VALA2008 Session 3 Kingsley Podcast 12 MB
Abstract
In Australia, research reporting is considered a way to increase awareness of and support for opening up accessibility to research outputs. This paper explores the fundamental differences between disciplines, which extend beyond publishing outputs. Most crucially, the information-seeking behaviour of a disciplinary cohort will determine the likelihood of individuals voluntarily embracing repositories. The RQF is likely to fail to open access to Australian research. There is an inherent conflict between the needs of the institution and those of academics’ ‘invisible colleges’, as institutional repositories exist to serve the institution and funding bodies, rather than the individual.