Questionnaire for Planning
and Pilot Testing (PPT) Respondents
Informed Consent Form
(See appendix B for Informed Consent Form.)
A. Number of IRs
1. How many institutional repositories (IRs)—general IRs, special-purpose IRs, and IRs in the pilot-testing phase—are available or will be available to members of your institution’s learning community in the near future?
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 or more |
Please answer the remaining 39 questions with the one IR in mind that offers the widest array of services to the most people and greatest number of constituencies (e.g., faculty members, students, staff, administrators, guests) in your institution’s learning community. Please feel free to message Soo Young Rieh (rieh@umich.edu) with your questions or concerns.
B. Getting Started: Timelines, Funding, Benefits, and Needs Assessment
2. How long has your institution been involved with IR planning and pilot testing? Please enter the number of months.
3. How much longer is your institution likely to continue IR planning and pilot testing before making the decision whether or not to implement an IR? Please enter the number of months.
4a. How important are these anticipated benefits of IRs to your institution?
VI* |
SI |
SU |
VU |
NO |
DK |
NA |
|
A boost to your institution’s prestige |
|||||||
Better service to contributors |
|||||||
Better services to your institution’s learning community |
|||||||
New services to learning communities beyond your institution |
|||||||
Maintaining control over your institution’s intellectual property |
|||||||
Capturing the intellectual capital of your institution |
|||||||
Contributing to the reform of the entire enterprise of scholarly communication and publishing |
|||||||
A reduction in the amount of time between discovery and dissemination of research findings to scholarly communities |
|||||||
An increase in citation counts to your institution’s intellectual output |
|||||||
Exposing your institution’s intellectual output to researchers in North America and around the world who would not otherwise have access to it through traditional channels |
|||||||
An increase in the accessibility to knowledge assets such as numeric, video, audio, and multimedia datasets |
|||||||
Providing maximal access to the results of publicly funded research |
|||||||
A solution to the problem of preserving your institution’s intellectual output |
|||||||
An increase in your library’s role as a viable partner in the research enterprise |
|||||||
Reducing user dependence on your library’s print collection |
|||||||
Longtime preservation of your institution’s digital output |
|||||||
Other (Please specify in question 4b below) |
|||||||
* Key to abbreviations: VI=Very important, SI=Somewhat important, SU=Somewhat unimportant, VU=Very unimportant, NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
4b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
5. What is the likelihood that your institution will conduct a needs assessment prior to making a decision about implementing an IR?
Very likely |
Somewhat likely |
Somewhat unlikely |
Very unlikely |
No opinion |
Don’t know |
6. Has your institution conducted a needs assessment for an IR?
Yes |
No |
Don’t know |
7a. How important are the results of the following investigative activities in terms of influencing your institution to initiate planning and pilot testing activities for an IR?
VI* |
SI |
SU |
VU |
NO |
DK |
NA |
|
Results of your institution’s needs assessment |
|||||||
Learning about successful implementations at comparable institutions |
|||||||
Learning about successful implementations at a wide range of academic institutions |
|||||||
Learning about available expertise and assistance from a library consortium, network, group of libraries, etc. |
|||||||
An analysis of a thorough literature review of IRs |
|||||||
Learning from reports of other institutions’ IR planning, pilot testing IR software, and implementation activities to date |
|||||||
Using other institutions’ operational IRs |
|||||||
Demonstrating operational IRs to my institution’s decision-makers |
|||||||
Demonstrating IR metadata harvesters such as OAIster and Google Scholar to my institution’s decision-makers |
|||||||
Waiting for a critical mass of IR implementation at comparable institutions to happen |
|||||||
Waiting for a critical mass of IR implementation generally to happen |
|||||||
Better digital preservation techniques |
|||||||
Other (Please specify in question 7b below) |
|||||||
* Key to abbreviations: VI=Very important, SI=Somewhat important, SU=Somewhat unimportant, VU=Very unimportant, NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
7b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
C. People Involved in IR Planning and Pilot Testing
8a. How active were people in the following positions in terms of leading the charge to get involved with IRs at your institution?
VA* |
SA |
SI |
VI |
NO |
DK |
NA |
|
Staff at a library network, consortium, or other affiliated group |
|||||||
Your institution’s president or chancellor |
|||||||
Your institution’s vice president or provost |
|||||||
Faculty governance, e. g., faculty senate, faculty senate assembly, etc. |
|||||||
Your institution’s chief information officer |
|||||||
Your institution’s archivist |
|||||||
Faculty members generally |
|||||||
A faculty member in particular |
|||||||
Library director |
|||||||
Assistant library director(s) |
|||||||
Library staff member(s) |
|||||||
Graduate student (s) |
|||||||
Undergraduate student(s) |
|||||||
Other (Please specify in question 8b below) |
|||||||
* Key to abbreviations: VA=Very active, SA=Somewhat active, SI=Somewhat inactive, VI=Very inactive, NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
8b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
9. Who is the individual leading IR planning and pilot testing at your institution? (Choose one only.)
A faculty member in a particular college, department, or school |
Your institution’s chief information officer |
Your institution’s archivist |
Library director |
Assistant library director |
A library staff member |
No committee or committee chair has been appointed |
Other (please specify) |
10. If a committee is involved in IR planning and pilot testing, identify the positions of the other people on this committee. (Choose as many as apply.)
Staff from the office of the president or chancellor |
Staff from the office of the vice-president or provost |
Staff from the office of the chief information officer |
Staff from your institution’s legal office |
Your institution’s chief information officer |
Your institution’s archivist |
Library director |
Assistant library director |
Library staff member(s) |
Archives staff |
A faculty member in particular |
Graduate student(s) |
Undergraduate student(s) |
Committee members have not yet been appointed |
Other (please specify) |
11. How many people are involved in IR planning and pilot testing?
12a. What percentage of the responsibility for an operational IR do you think should be given to various campus units? (Percentages must add up to 100%.)
% Your institution’s central administration |
|
% Your institution’s library |
|
% Your institution’s central computing unit |
|
% The office of the chief information officer |
|
% Your institution’s archives |
|
% Various academic colleges, departments, and schools |
|
% Other (Please specify in question 12b below) |
12b. If you provided a percentage for ‘Other’ for the question above, please specify in the box below.
D. Contributors to the IR
13. If you could foretell the future, who will be authorized contributors to your institution’s IR? (Choose as many as apply.)
Faculty members |
Graduate students |
Undergraduate students |
Research scientists |
Librarians |
Archivists |
Your institution’s administrators |
Your institution’s press |
Your institution’s news service |
Your institution’s central computer services staff |
Academic support staff |
External contributors |
Other (please specify) |
14. Who do you think will be the major contributor to your institution’s IR? (Choose one only.)
Faculty |
Graduate students |
Undergraduate students |
Research scientists |
Librarians |
Archivists |
University and college administrators |
Computer services staff |
Academic support staff |
Other (please specify) |
15a. Why do you think members of your institution’s learning community will contribute to an IR?
VI* |
SI |
SU |
VU |
NO |
DK |
NA |
|
To boost the particular scholar’s prestige |
|||||||
To boost your institution’s prestige |
|||||||
To contribute to the reform of the entire enterprise of scholarly communication and publishing |
|||||||
To reduce the amount of time between discovery and dissemination of research findings to scholarly communities |
|||||||
To increase citation counts to the particular scholar’s oeuvre |
|||||||
To increase citation counts to your institution’s intellectual output |
|||||||
To encourage other scholars to provide open access to their intellectual output |
|||||||
To expose the particular scholar’s intellectual output to researchers in North America and around the world who would not otherwise have access to it through traditional channels |
|||||||
To expose your institution’s intellectual output to researchers in North America and around the world who would not otherwise have access to it through traditional channels |
|||||||
To place the burden of preservation on the IR instead of on individual faculty members |
|||||||
To increase the accessibility to knowledge assets such as numeric, video, audio, and multimedia datasets |
|||||||
To provide maximal access to the results of publicly funded research |
|||||||
To solve the problem of preserving your institution’s intellectual output |
|||||||
To increase the library’s role as a viable partner in the research enterprise |
|||||||
To reduce user dependence on your library’s print collection |
|||||||
Other (Please specify in question 15b below) |
|||||||
* Key to abbreviations: VI=Very important, SI=Somewhat important, SU=Somewhat unimportant, VU=Very unimportant, NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
15b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
16a. What digital content recruitment methods do you think will be most successful at your institution?
VS* |
SS |
SU |
VU |
NO |
DK |
NA |
|
Volunteer contributions |
|||||||
Publicity about the IR in campus newspapers |
|||||||
Presentations by staff responsible for the IR at departmental and faculty meetings |
|||||||
Personal visits by staff responsible for the IR to faculty and administrators |
|||||||
Staff responsible for the IR working one-on-one with early adopters |
|||||||
Word-of-mouth from early adopters to their colleagues in the faculty and staff ranks |
|||||||
Publicizing the IR during reference interactions in libraries and archives |
|||||||
Systematic review of faculty, staff, center, and departmental web sites for potential contributors by staff responsible for the IR |
|||||||
Institution-wide mandates regarding mandatory contribution of certain material types, e.g., doctoral dissertations, master’s theses, faculty preprints, etc. |
|||||||
Other (Please specify in question 16b below) |
|||||||
* Key to abbreviations: VS=Very successful, SS=Somewhat successful, SU=Somewhat unsuccessful, VU=Very unsuccessful, NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
16b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
E. Pilot Testing IR Software Packages
17. What IR software packages are you pilot testing? (Choose all that apply.)
ARNO |
bePress |
CDSWare |
ContentDM |
DigiTool (Ex Libris) |
DiVA |
Documentum |
Dpubs |
DSpace |
Fedora |
GNU Eprints |
Greenstone |
HarvestRoad Hive |
Innovative Interfaces |
i-TOR |
Luna |
myCORE |
OPUS |
Sunsite |
Virginia Tech ETD software |
None |
Other (please specify) |
18. What interoperability standards do you want your IR to support? (Choose all that apply.)
IR supports OAI-MPH |
IR is OpenURL compliant |
IR materials use persistent identifiers |
Our institution’s federated searching includes the IR |
Other (please specify) |
19a. What are the most important benefits of having pilot tested one or more IRs?
VI* |
SI |
SU |
VU |
NO |
DK |
NA |
|
Giving demonstrations to people involved in the IR implementation decision |
|||||||
Giving demonstrations to an institution (s) interested in partnering with us to encourage them in IR implementation |
|||||||
Gauging the interest of potential contributors to the IR |
|||||||
Gauging the interest of potential IR-system users |
|||||||
Identifying the strengths and shortcomings of available IR software |
|||||||
Estimating costs for the technical implementation of an operational IR |
|||||||
Developing the requisite technical expertise for IR implementation |
|||||||
Identifying first adopters of an IR at your institution |
|||||||
Control over your institution’s intellectual output |
|||||||
Preservation of your institution’s intellectual output |
|||||||
Other (Please specify in question 19b below) |
|||||||
* Key to abbreviations: VI=Very important, SI=Somewhat important, SU=Somewhat unimportant, VU=Very unimportant, NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
19b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
20a. Based on your pilot testing of IR software packages, how would you rate IR systems generally with regard to these capabilities?
VA* |
SA |
SI |
VI |
NO |
DK |
NA |
|
Technical support |
|||||||
Technical documentation |
|||||||
Adherence to open access standards |
|||||||
Scalability = System growth and enhancement |
|||||||
Customization |
|||||||
Extensibility = Access to other campus systems and data |
|||||||
Supported file formats |
|||||||
User authentication |
|||||||
Formulating metadata for digital documents |
|||||||
Browsing, searching, and retrieving digital content |
|||||||
End-user interface generally |
|||||||
Controlled vocabulary searching |
|||||||
Authority control |
|||||||
Digital preservation |
|||||||
Other (Please specify in question 20b below) |
|||||||
* Key to abbreviations: VA=Very adequate, SA=Somewhat adequate, SI=Somewhat inadequate, VI=Very inadequate, NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
20b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
21. If your pilot testing with IRs involves early adopters of IR technology, from what academic colleges, departments, schools, and service units will they come? (Choose all that apply.)
Your institution’s library |
Your institution’s central computing unit |
Your institution’s archives |
A particular academic college, department, or school |
A particular service unit |
Don’t know |
Not applicable |
Other (please specify) |
F. Digital Content for the IR
22. What digital documents make up your IR’s collections in its present pilot-testing phase? (Mark all that apply.)
Preprints |
Working papers |
Books |
Journals |
Journal articles |
Maps |
Interview transcripts |
Sound recordings of interview transcripts |
Software |
Software documentation |
Video recordings of performances |
Blogs |
Interim and final reports to funding agencies |
Raw data files that result from faculty research projects |
Raw data files that result from doctoral dissertation research |
Raw data files that result from master’s thesis research |
Raw data files that result from senior thesis research |
Written papers or transcripts of conference presentations |
Conference presentations (e.g., summaries, abstracts, notes, outlines, remarks, etc.) |
Committee meeting agenda and minutes |
Committee meeting documents, e.g., budgets, reports, memoranda |
Your institution’s course catalogs |
Your institution’s newspapers |
Your institution’s alumni publications |
Faculty senate agendas and minutes |
College, departmental, and school alumni publications |
Regent, trustee, board meeting agenda and minutes |
Course syllabi, class notes, handouts, outlines, assignments prepared by faculty, lecturers, teaching assistants, and other professional teaching personnel |
Other learning objects such as simulations, models, software demonstration files, images, video prepared by faculty, lecturers, teaching assistants, and other professional teaching personnel |
Doctoral dissertations |
Master’s theses |
Senior theses |
Graduate student eportfolios |
Undergraduate student eportfolios |
Class notes, outlines, assignments, papers, and projects prepared by graduate students |
Class notes, outlines, assignments, papers, and projects prepared by undergraduate students |
Other (please specify) |
23. Estimate the total number of digital documents that are published or in process in the IR that you are pilot testing.
24a. Estimate the number of digital documents that make up your IR’s collections in its pilot-testing phase. (Write in the amount or write in DK for Don’t Know or NA for Not Applicable.)
Preprints |
Working papers |
Books |
Journals |
Journal articles |
Maps |
Interview transcripts |
Sound recordings of interview transcripts |
Software |
Software documentation |
Video recordings of performances |
Blogs |
Interim and final reports to funding agencies |
Raw data files that result from faculty research projects |
Raw data files that result from doctoral dissertation research |
Raw data files that result from master’s thesis research |
Raw data files that result from senior thesis research |
Written papers or transcripts of conference presentations |
Conference presentations (e.g., summaries, abstracts, notes, outlines, remarks, etc.) |
Committee meeting agenda and minutes |
Committee meeting documents, e.g., budgets, reports, memoranda |
Your institution’s course catalogs |
Your institution’s newspapers |
Your institution’s alumni publications |
Faculty senate agendas and minutes |
College, departmental, and school alumni publications |
Regent, trustee, board meeting agendas and minutes |
Course syllabi, class notes, handouts, outlines, assignments prepared by faculty, lecturers, teaching assistants, and other professional teaching personnel |
Other learning objects such as simulations, models, software demonstration files, images, video prepared by faculty, lecturers, teaching assistants, and other professional teaching personnel |
Doctoral dissertations |
Master’s theses |
Senior theses |
Graduate student eportfolios |
Undergraduate student eportfolios |
Class notes, outlines, assignments, papers, and projects prepared by graduate students |
Class notes, outlines, assignments, papers, and projects prepared by undergraduate students |
Other (Please specify type of digital document in question 24b below) |
24b. If you entered an estimate for “Other” in the previous question, please specify in the box below.
25. When you formally implement an IR, do you intend to add the same kinds of digital content into the system?
Yes, the same kinds |
Yes, the same and other kinds of content |
No |
Don’t know |
Not applicable |
Maybe. Please explain: |
26a. What file formats have you guaranteed contributors that you will preserve in perpetuity?
Guaranteed |
DK* |
NO |
NA |
|
Plain Text UTF-8 (Unicode) |
||||
Plain Text ANSI X3.4/ECMA-6/US-ASCII (7-bit) |
||||
Plain Text ISO 8859-x (8-bit) |
||||
Plain Text (all other encodings, including, but not limited to ISO 646 national variants) |
||||
Rich text |
||||
XML |
||||
TeX |
||||
LaTeX |
||||
Postscript |
||||
|
||||
PDF/A |
||||
Microsoft Word |
||||
Microsoft Excel |
||||
Microsoft PowerPoint |
||||
TIFF |
||||
GIF |
||||
JPEG |
||||
PNG |
||||
BMP |
||||
Photo CD |
||||
Photoshop |
||||
AIFF |
||||
Audio/Basic |
||||
MPEG audio |
||||
AAC_M4A |
||||
Real Audio |
||||
Windows Media Audio |
||||
Wave |
||||
AVI |
||||
MPEG-1 |
||||
MPEG-2 |
||||
MPEG-4 |
||||
Windows Media Video |
||||
Quicktime |
||||
Other (Please specify file format in question 26b below) |
||||
* Key to abbreviations: NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
26b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
27. Who will be responsible for managing the IR’s intellectual property rights? (Choose all that apply.)
Contributors’ academic or service unit |
One chosen academic unit |
One chosen service unit |
IR staff |
Library staff |
Archives staff |
Staff from the office of the chief information office |
A company that our IR is outsourcing |
Other (please specify) |
G. Speculating on Your IR’s Future
28a. How likely are each of the following to be your next steps on the road to IR implementation as a direct result of your IR planning and pilot testing?
VL* |
SL |
SU |
VU |
NO |
DK |
NA |
|
Your institution terminates its investigation of IRs |
|||||||
Your institution seeks a partner institution(s) to share in an IR |
|||||||
Your institution seeks funding for the next step of investigation of IRs |
|||||||
Your institution supports implementation of an IR software package |
|||||||
Your institution widens the scope of its investigation into IRs |
|||||||
Your institution waits for a consortium, network, group, etc., to implement an IR |
|||||||
Other (Please specify in question 28b below) |
|||||||
* Key to abbreviations: VL=Very likely, SL=Somewhat likely, SU=Somewhat unlikely, VU=Very unlikely, NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
28b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
29a. What is the status of these IR policies?
NP* |
D |
I |
DK |
NA |
|
Determining what is acceptable content |
|||||
Defining collections |
|||||
Determining who is authorized to make contributions to the IR |
|||||
Restricting access to IR content |
|||||
Acceptable file formats |
|||||
Identifying metadata formats and authorized metadata creators |
|||||
Charging for IR services |
|||||
Formulating a privacy policy for registered IR system users |
|||||
Licensing IR content |
|||||
Updating IR content |
|||||
Withdrawing IR content |
|||||
Providing access management services |
|||||
Preserving IR content |
|||||
Revising IR policies in the future |
|||||
Authorizing external contributors |
|||||
Intellectual property |
|||||
Other (Please specify in question 29b below) |
|||||
* Key to abbreviations: NP=No policy; D=Drafted; I=Implemented; DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
29b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
30a. To what extent do you think the following are likely to inhibit your ability to deploy a successful IR?
VL* |
SL |
SU |
VU |
NO |
DK |
NA |
|
Making members of your institution’s learning community aware of the IR |
|||||||
Contributors’ lack of knowledge about how they can benefit from IRs |
|||||||
Encouraging faculty to submit digital content to the IR |
|||||||
Convincing faculty that the IR will not adversely affect the current publishing model |
|||||||
Absence of campus-wide mandates regarding mandatory contribution of certain material types, e.g., doctoral dissertations, master’s theses, faculty preprints, etc. |
|||||||
Contributors’ concerns about the difficulty using the IR system to contribute digital content to the IR |
|||||||
Inability of contributors to formulate quality metadata |
|||||||
Contributors’ concerns about intellectual property rights for digital materials |
|||||||
Inadequacy of the IR system’s digital preservation capabilities |
|||||||
Difficulties in long-term preservation of digital files |
|||||||
Lack of on-campus technical expertise in IR systems |
|||||||
Supporting all ongoing costs of an operational IR |
|||||||
Competing for resources with other priorities, projects, and initiatives |
|||||||
Other (Please specify in question 30b below) |
|||||||
* Key to abbreviations: VL=Very likely, SL=Somewhat likely, SU=Somewhat unlikely, VU=Very unlikely, NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
30b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
31. To what extent will an IR affect your institution’s ability to build relationships between the IR and other on-campus repositories (e.g., archives, student services, library systems, digital asset management systems, electronic course management systems, digital libraries)?
A big positive effect |
A moderate positive effect |
No effect |
A moderate negative effect |
A big negative effect |
A combination of positive and negative effects |
Don’t know |
No opinion |
Not applicable |
Other (please specify) |
32a. How likely is it that funding for your institution’s implementation of an IR will come from these sources?
VL* |
SL |
SU |
VU |
NO |
DK |
NA |
|
Special initiative supported by your institution’s central administration |
|||||||
Special initiative supported by your institution’s library |
|||||||
Special initiative supported by your institution’s central computer services |
|||||||
Special initiative supported by your institution’s archives |
|||||||
Special initiative supported by academic colleges, departments, and schools |
|||||||
Regular budget line item for your institution’s central administration |
|||||||
Regular budget line item for your institution’s library |
|||||||
Regular budget line item for your institution’s central computer services |
|||||||
Regular budget line item for your institution’s archives |
|||||||
Regular budget line item for academic colleges, departments, and schools |
|||||||
Costs absorbed in routine operating costs of your institution’s central administration |
|||||||
Costs absorbed in routine operating costs of your institution’s library |
|||||||
Costs absorbed in routine operating costs of your institution’s central computer services |
|||||||
Costs absorbed in routine operating costs of your institution’s archives |
|||||||
Costs absorbed in routine operating costs of your institution’s academic colleges, departments, and schools |
|||||||
Grant awarded by an external source |
|||||||
Grant awarded by an internal source |
|||||||
Other (Please specify in question 32b below) |
|||||||
* Key to abbreviations: VL=Very likely, SL=Somewhat likely, SU=Somewhat unlikely, VU=Very unlikely, NO=No opinion, DK=Don’t know, NA=Not applicable |
32b. If you rated “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
33a. What percentage of your IR’s annual budget is allocated to these categories? (Percentages must add up to 100%.)
% Staff (including benefits) |
|
% Hardware acquisition |
|
% Hardware maintenance |
|
% Software acquisition |
|
% Software maintenance and updates |
|
% System backup |
|
% Vendor fees (for IRs hosted by an external vendor) |
|
% Other (Please specify in 33b question below) |
33b. If you provided a percentage for “Other” for the question above, please specify in the box below.
H. Identifying You and Your Institution
34. Please identify your position at your institution. (Choose one only.)
President or chancellor |
Staff in the office of the president or chancellor |
Vice president or provost |
Staff in the office of the vice president or provost |
Chief information officer |
Staff in the office of the chief information officer |
Archivist |
Archives staff |
Library director |
Assistant director of library public services |
Assistant director of library technical services |
Assistant director of library information technology |
Library staff |
Other (please specify) |
35. What is your connection to your institution’s IR?
36. Please identify your institution.
37. If the IRs your institution is pilot testing are available to the general public, please give their web address(es).
I. Follow-up information
38. How can the MIRACLE Project assist you regarding IRs?
39. If you would be willing to volunteer for follow-up questions via phone or email, please add your name and email address and we will contact you in the near future:
Name |
|
Thank you! If you have questions, please message Soo Young Rieh (rieh@umich.edu) at the MIRACLE Project. Thank you for your responses.