Friday, February 1, 2008

Soo Young Rieh et al

This article discusses how five key components of IRs – leaders, funding, content, contributors, and systems – are perceived by IR staff at academic institutions where IRs have been implemented, pilot-tested, and planned. Findings are based on the Census of Institutional Repositories in the United States carried out by the Making Institutional Repositories A Collaborative Learning Environment (MIRACLE) project at the University of Michigan with funding from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) (Markey, Rieh, St. Jean, Kim, & Yakel, 2007). The discussion of IRs in this article focuses on a comparison across four categories of IR involvement: (1) no planning to date (NP); (2) planning only (PO); (3) planning and pilot-testing one or more IR systems (PPT), and; (4) public implementation of an IR system (IMP).

Go to source:

D-Lib Magazine, November/December 2007