Evidence Summary
Doctoral Students in New Zealand Have Low
Awareness of Institutional Repository Existence, but Positive Attitudes Toward Open Access Publication of Their Work
A Review of:
Stanton, K. V.,
& Liew, C. L. (2012). Open access theses in institutional
repositories: An exploratory study of the perceptions of doctoral students. Information Research, 17(1), paper 507. Available from http://InformationR.net/ir/17-1/paper507.html
Reviewed by:
Theresa S. Arndt
Associate Director
for Library Resources & Administration
Waidner-Spahr Library, Dickinson College
Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
United States of America
Email: arndtt@dickinson.edu
Received: 1 Sept. 2012 Accepted: 26 Oct. 2012
2012 Arndt.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike
License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐sa/2.5/ca/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work
is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed,
the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this
one.
Abstract
Objective – To investigate doctoral students'
knowledge of and attitudes toward open access models of scholarly communication
and institutional repositories, and to examine their willingness to comply with
a mandatory institutional repository (IR) submission policy.
Design – Mixed method, sequential exploratory
design.
Setting – A large, multi-campus New Zealand
university that mandates IR deposit of doctoral theses.
Subjects – Two doctoral students from each of four
university colleges were interviewed. All 901 doctoral students were
subsequently sent a survey, with 251 responding.
Methods – Semi-structured interviews with eight
subjects selected by purposive sampling, followed by a survey sent to all
doctoral students. The authors used NVivo 8 for
analysis of interview data, along with a two-phase approach to coding. First,
they analyzed transcripts from semi-structured interviews line-by-line to
identify themes. In the second phase, authors employed focused coding to analyze
the most common themes and to merge or drop peripheral themes. Themes were
mapped against Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory and social exchange
theory constructs to aid interpretation. The results were used to develop a
survey with a fixed set of response choices. Authors then analyzed survey
results using Excel and SurveyMonkey, first as a
single data set and then by discipline.
Main Results – The authors found that general awareness
of open access was high (62%), and overall support for
open access publication was 86.3%. Awareness of IRs as a general concept was
much lower at 48%. Those subject to a mandatory IR deposit policy for doctoral
theses overwhelmingly indicated willingness to comply (92.6%), as did those
matriculating prior to the policy (83.3%), although only 77.3% of all
respondents agreed that deposit should be mandatory. Only 17.6% of respondents
had deposited their own work in an IR, while 31.7% reported directly accessing
a repository for research. The greatest perceived benefits of IR participation
were removal of cost for readers, ease of sharing research, increased exposure
and citing of one's work, and professional networking. The greatest perceived
risks were plagiarism, loss of ability to publish elsewhere, and less prestige
relative to traditional publication. The reason most given for selecting a
specific publication outlet was recommendation of a doctoral supervisor.
Disciplinary differences in responses were not sizable.
For additional interpretation, the authors applied Rogers’s diffusion of
innovations theory to determine the extent to which IRs are effective
innovations. The authors posit
that repositories will become a more widely adopted innovations as awareness of
IRs in general increases, and through increased awareness that IR content is
discoverable through major search engines such as Google Scholar, thus
improving usability and increasing dissemination of research. Using the social
exchange theory framework, the authors found that respondents’ expressed willingness
to deposit their work in IRs demonstrated altruistic motives for sharing their
research freely with others, appreciation for the reciprocity of gaining access
to others’ research, and awareness of the potential direct reward of having
their work cited more often.
Conclusion – Authors identified that lack of
awareness, rather than resistance to deposit, as the main barrier to IR
depository participation. Major benefits perceived for participating included
the public good of knowledge sharing and increased exposure for one’s work.
Concerns included copyright and plagiarism issues. These findings have
implications for communication and marketing campaigns to promote doctoral
students' deposit of their work in institutional repositories. While respondents
reported low direct use of IRs for conducting research, the vast majority
reported using Google Scholar, and so may have unknowingly accessed open access
repository content. This finding suggests that attention be given to enhanced
metadata for optimizing discoverability of IR content through general search
engines.
Commentary
[Critical
appraisal tool used: Booth & Brice (2003). CRiSTAL checklist for appraising a
user study. Available from: http://nettingtheevidence.pbwiki.com/f/use.doc]
The authors have
made a useful contribution to the literature on attitudes toward new modes of
scholarly communication, and provide a thorough literature review of prior
studies. Colleges and universities relying on a “build it and they will come”
approach for IR participation have typically been disappointed. Studies of
faculty have identified multiple barriers to participating in open access
publication in general and IRs in particular. Faculty concerns about increased
plagiarism, copyright, and tenure qualification have been widely reported.
Prior studies have also found significant disciplinary differences in open
access support. By focusing on doctoral students, this study sheds light on the
attitudes of emerging researchers. It is to be expected that awareness and
attitudes of doctoral students would be largely consistent with studies of
faculty, who transmit the social norms of the academy to their students.
However, the authors' unanticipated finding of weak disciplinary differences
suggests that the next generation of researchers may be more receptive to IR
participation regardless of their disciplines' traditional form of scholarly
communication.
The objectives of
the current study and the study population have been clearly defined. The mixed
method approach is of benefit in conducting research into attitudes about
complex concepts and practices. Eight doctoral students were interviewed, and
criteria for interview subject selection, other than the college within the
university, are not stated. The study would have been enriched by additional
interview results. The overall survey response rate of 28% on the survey is
also disappointing, though not uncommon in this type of research, and the
authors do note the possibility of response bias. Additional clarity is provided
by reporting both percentages and number of responses for specific questions.
No tests were applied to determine statistical significance of the findings.
This leaves the reader to conclude whether a particular result may or may not
be meaningful. However given the consistency with prior studies, the findings
are credible. Library practitioners could readily replicate the methodology to
gauge local attitudes.
As colleges and
universities develop institutional repositories, it is important to understand
the motivating factors and barriers affecting researchers' willingness to
participate. Mandatory deposit policies may be useful, but cannot substitute
for individual researcher's buy-in to both the concept and practice of open
access publication. As the next generation of academic faculty, doctoral
students' awareness and understanding of IR benefits and risks will be crucial
in shaping this new form of scholarly communication. By understanding these
attitudes, librarians and others involved in IR development can create more
effective communication and marketing programs. The finding that doctoral
supervisor recommendation most influenced choice of publication venue suggests
that marketing and advocacy aimed at this group may greatly influence IR participation.