Sandy: A recent reading of Raym Crow's 2002 SPARC White
Paper on
IRs reminded me that he gave two principal reason for
setting
them up:
1. Serve as tangible indicators of an institution's quality
and
to demonstrate the relevance of its research activities,
thus
increasing the institution's visibility, status, and public
value
(what one could term administrative aggregation).
2. Provide tools to assist universities in re-shaping the
scholarly communications process (what one could term a
repair
function).
Ann Okerson/Yale Library
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Sandy Thatcher wrote:
> Rick's question suggests another: the main rationale
for using
> IRs to promote OA seems to be that universities have a
strong
> interest in exhibiting the research that their
faculties
> produce, but do administrators really believe that? Is
an
> administrator at a state university testifying before a
> legislative hearing and trying to get more funding
going to
> point to all that research on the IR as a reason for
the state
> to increase its financial support? And just how would
this kind
> of demonstration work? And who are private universities
trying
> to impress? Members of Congress whose votes are needed
to
> increase funding for NIH, Defense Department research,
etc.?
>
> Are universities perhaps trying to impress each other
so as to
> raid one another for their best faculty? It is just
unclear to
> me what this presumed self-interest universities have
in their
> IRs really amounts to, and how it can actually be put
to
> practical use. Does anyone have a good answer?
>
> --Sandy Thatcher, Penn State Press
|
