Good Morning!!!!

1. Good Morning!!!! & Welcome to Cape Town

2. Two South African IRs acomparative overview: UCT & UP Annah Macha MPhil Student Department of Library & Information Science, UCT annah.macha@uct.ac.za A/Prof Karin de Jager Centre for Information Literacy, UCT karin.dejager@uct.ac.za

3. Introduction • 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)

4. Development of South African IRs • 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

5. Development cont… • 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.

6. Towards developing an IR at the UCT • 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- 2005

7. Establishment of the UCT IR • 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

8. UCT IR • New digitization unit was established, in charge of developing the IR • showcase UCT’s research • The UCT repository at present consists of: • digital collections-1891 • finding aids- 866 and • theses anddissertations-1099

9. Description of IR @ UP • 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)

10. Prerequisites for an IR • 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

11. Up & UCT compared • UP • HOD Information Science, subject librarians, metadata specialist, a digitization specialist and IT staff” • Needs analysis: survey • open source software – ETD-db • UCT • Head of Digitization Unit • small-scale project in 2001 • Proprietary software DigiTool would integrate with UCT online catalogue Aleph and UCT portal, PRIMO by Ex Libris

12. Comparative analysis cont... • 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

13. Criteria for a successful repository 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) • 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

14. Criteria for a successful repository 2 • 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

15. Criteria for a successful repository 3 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

16. Criteria for a successful repository 4 • 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

17. Finally UP & Uct • 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

18. Conclusion • IRs are important: • Collect & house • Preserve & archive research output • Enhance visibility & prestige of institution