Socio-Technical Factors of Scholarly Communication in

an Institutional Repository Context

Nathan Hall
Center for Digital Research and
Scholarship, University Libraries
Virginia Tech, USA

nfhall@vt.edu
ABSTRACT
This exploratory study uses a phenomenological approach to
examine faculty attitudes in an institutional repository context as
well as the socio-technical factors that affect scholarly
communication and data sharing practices. The author conducts
interviews and observations with Environmental Studies faculty at
two large public research universities. This article reports
preliminary results, though data transcription and analysis are
ongoing. The author plans to analyze interview transcriptions to
find dominant themes. The themes will inform recommendations
to improve institutional repository services for the stakeholders.

Categories and Subject Descriptors

J.4 [Social and Behavioral Sciences]: Economics, psychology,
sociology

General Terms
Human Factors

Keywords
Data sharing, Scholarly Communication, Socio-Technical Factors,
Research
Environments,
Phenomenology,
Institutional
Repositories

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
New information technologies have created new expectations in
scholarly communication, including the accessibility of research
data [1][2]. Policies and culture have shifted both locally and
internationally in response to new capabilities. Since the National
Institutes of Health released the Final NIH Statement on Data
Sharing in 2003 [3], several other funding agencies have followed
suit and provided guidelines for providing open access for
research data and peer-reviewed articles resulting from sponsored
research. Proposed legislation such as the Fair Access to Science
and Technology Research Act, and federal mandates such as the
Policy Memorandum for Increasing Access to the Results of
Federally Funded Scientific Research from the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy [4] have increased
expectations for faculty to share the results of federally funded
research. This is an opportunity for institutional repositories and
other digital curation programs to provide services to help
researchers meet those demands, yet there are still problems with
low deposit rates for institutional repositories.
Lynch [5] defines institutional repositories as a set of services
that a university offers to the members of its community for the
management and dissemination of digital materials created by the
institution and its community members and states that they could
or should contain research and teaching materials as well as

experimental and observational data that support the scholarly

activities of researchers at the institution.

1.2 Research Problem

Teaching and research faculty attitudes towards institutional
repository services are poorly understood. Repository developers,
managers, and administrators have been largely disconnected
from their faculty stakeholders needs in many universities [6]. As
a result, institutional repositories and the Open Access movement
have not been as successful on a national scale in the United
States as early advocates hoped [7][8].
Some existing studies explore faculty deposit patterns [9] and
attitudes [10], including a study that examines the very notion of
authorship and responsibility of research data [11] but the
literature review did not find any studies that specifically examine
socio-technical factors of faculty attitudes regarding scholarly
communication and data sharing in an institutional repository
context.
A shifting policy landscape will impact the scholarly
communication and data sharing practices of faculty, particularly
for federally funded research, but that does not mean that
academic libraries can be complacent about addressing
stakeholder concerns in the development and deployment of
institutional repositories.
Academic libraries have new
opportunities to become partners in the campus research
environment, but a better understanding of faculty attitudes and
the socio-technical factors that affect scholarly communication
and data sharing practices will help academic libraries provide
better services.

1.3 Research Questions

1.
2.
3.

How do teaching and research faculty want to

disseminate their research?
What attitudes do teaching and research faculty have
towards data sharing?
What socio-technical factors promote or inhibit faculty
adoption of institutional repositories?

1.4 Research Goals

The goals of this research are to:

Determine the socio-technical factors that affect faculty

attitudes towards institutional repository services.
Produce findings that will inform the future
development of institutional repository services,
particularly for the stakeholders in this project.
Produce findings that will inform academic library
strategies for partnering with teaching and research
faculty.
Develop areas for further research to produce
generalizable findings.

2. STATE OF THE FIELD

To provide a framework for understanding the attitudes of
researchers in an institutional repository context, this study relies
on the body of work in several different areas of research,
including information behavior, scholarly communication, data
management, and innovation diffusion theory.
Information behavior studies cover a wide range of activity
[12][13].
One study found discipline, time spent in an
organization, task role, and cognitive style each has an impact on
information behavior [14]. Another author used ethnography to
study a digital library community, an approach which emphasized
the importance of ongoing investigation of emergent
phenomena to track the development of a digital library and its
stakeholders [15].
Research on digital curation of research data, particularly the
IMLS funded Data Curation Profiles project at the Distributed
Data Curation Center at Purdue University Libraries is useful for
the study of how faculty manage research data. This project is
still underway but the process for designing the tool is
documented [16]. Additionally, the completed Data Curation
Profiles (http://datacurationprofiles.org/completed) provide a data
set for potential analysis, though no studies have been published
yet. Further infrastructure and training for librarians is necessary
for more robust data curation services in academic libraries [17].
A survey conducted at California Polytechnic Institute at San Luis
Obispo found that while the majority of researchers believe that
colleagues should share their data, only a minority of respondents
actually share their own data with individuals who did not help in
gathering the data [18]. The question of why researchers do not
share their data was not within the scope of the study.
One qualitative study by Foster and Gibbons [6] at the University
of Rochester used work-place observations and interviews with
faculty in various disciplines to determine how an institutional
repository could support existing work practices. The co-authors
developed marketing strategies to better communicate benefits of
the institutional repository to faculty researchers. They also
developed customized researcher pages to promote the works of
individual faculty members rather than the output of the
institution. Foster and Gibbons demonstrate the value of
qualitative methods to better understand faculty and for generating
findings to improve repository services. The study however does
not examine how socio-technical factors affect faculty use of
institutional repositories.
User acceptance of technology and innovation diffusion theory
provide a theoretical background for studying socio-technical
factors in institutional repository contexts [19]. Dillon and Morris
cite three factor groups that influence technology acceptance,
including user psychology, information technology design
process, and user perception of quality.
The study of socio-technical factors was useful in a study of
scholarly communication forums [20]. The authors found that
when research and development only examines technical factors
such as information processing features and only examines users
as individual actors, then the cultural work context and the
information ecology is ignored. Technological development does
not serve sustainability or user-acceptance unless developers and
administrators also include these additional social and behavioral
factors when analyzing user requirements. The study found that a
socio-technical interaction network-based model forces social
analysis into the entire process of development and management,
instead of just in planning and evaluation.

3. RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 Strategy of Inquiry
This study uses a phenomenological approach in the collection
and analysis of qualitative data from semi-structured interviews to
determine socio-technical factors that inhibit faculty adoption of
institutional repositories at the Institute of Applied Science at the
University of North Texas, and at a few selected colleges that
study environmental issues at Virginia Tech.
Phenomenology is a research strategy to understand human
experiences about a phenomenon as described by participants
[21]. Phenomenological research involves prolonged individual
contact with a small number of participants to identify common
trends. Phenomenology is often characterized by in depth
qualitative data from a very small sample. Its value comes from
its emphasis on personal perspective and subjective experience. It
can identify deep issues that would be easily overlooked by other
methods, such as surveys or log analysis. The limitation from the
small sample size in phenomenology is that it is difficult to
produce generalizable findings, but it conversely provides a route
to understanding the meaning attributed by persons to the
activities in which they engage, in order to understand their
behavior [22].
Phenomenology is an appropriate strategy for this research for a
variety of reasons. It is flexible compared to other approaches.
Flexibility is a critical feature since there is no established general
tool for understanding user communities in an institutional
repository context. Institutional repositories at the two locations in
this study are still in the early stages of development. The two
populations in question are not well understood in terms of their
information searching behavior and a study of these groups would
be useful to the designers of these technologies and services.
Because of these factors, phenomenology is a practical
exploratory approach for gathering data about how these
researchers seek information, and how access to and management
of these information resources could be improved.
Like with other qualitative research methods, the use of a
phenomenological approach affects the questions asked because
depending on a participants answer to a question in the interview,
the researcher asks probing follow-up questions that will not have
necessarily been planned.
A phenomenological approach affects data collection in a number
of ways. Data generated from audio-recorded semi-structured
interviews are descriptive rather than numeric. Data collection
occurs in a natural setting rather in a controlled research
environment and, in this study, timetables were subject to the
schedules of the participants.
The use of a phenomenological approach affects data analysis
because it involves data collected from human sources. Data
analysis is subject to nuanced interpretation as a researcher
attempts to generalize and code observed behaviors and recorded
quotations.
Finally, the phenomenological strategy affects the final narrative
by omitting some details that are irrelevant to the research
problem. Not all collected data is useful to the stakeholders. A
researcher must determine what data trends are relevant based on
how clearly they represent participant attitudes and how clearly
the relate to the research problem.

3.2 Researchers Role

Because this research deals with human participants, it is
necessary to obtain permission to conduct the study from the

respective Institutional Review Boards at Virginia Tech and UNT.

I submitted my list of interview questions to them, and they
approved the project.
I am connected to the University of North Texas participants in
this study as a former colleague and as a currently enrolled
doctoral candidate. I am connected to the Virginia Tech
participants as a current faculty member of that university.
Having that connection to the communities facilitated the process
of recruiting participants. I am connected to UNT Libraries as a
former librarian. I am connected to the VTechWorks repository
as the coordinator of that project and I work closely with the
software developers.
Due to my connection to the two digital library projects, risk of
bias on my part is significant. I manage the level of bias by
avoiding the sources listed by Schensul et al. [23]. These include
asking leading questions, failing to follow up on topics introduced
by the participant, interrupting or redirecting the participant,
failing to recognize participant reactions to my appearance, using
nonverbal cues that encourage the participant to give certain
answers, or voicing my opinions on any issues.
I recruited participants by two methods. I sent an email to their
work email address, requesting appointments to discuss their
research activities. The email stated that this study is a doctoral
dissertation project with the objective of improving the
information resources available to environmental policy
researchers. I also used my relationships to the communities to
identify potential participants through snowball sampling. The
appointments included a semi-structured interview over the
phone, or VOIP, or in person, depending on their location and
their relative convenience and comfort.
The participants will benefit from this study by providing input to
improve a research tool that serves their research needs. The
results will be reported in the final draft of the dissertation, which
will be freely available through the websites of the UNT Libraries
and Virginia Tech University Libraries. All participants will be
informed when the study is available.
Identifying characteristics of the participants will be masked in all
sections of the report. Participants were assigned numbers to
protect their identities. I also recorded certain profile information,
such as whether the participant was tenured or not.
The participants will benefit from this study by providing input to
improve a research tool that serves their research needs. The
results will be reported in the final draft of the dissertation, which
will be freely available through the websites of the UNT Libraries
and Virginia Tech University Libraries. All participants will be
informed when the study is available.

3.3 Data Collection Procedures

3.3.1 Bounding the Study
While interviewing researchers in other disciplines, or including
graduate students, would produce useful findings, it is convenient
to limit the research scope in this exploratory phase.
Environmental Studies is a suitable field due to its
interdisciplinary nature. Environmental Studies researchers are
diverse in methodology, philosophy, tools, culture, and practice.
The discipline includes scientists, humanists, and social scientists.
Robust Environmental Studies programs exist at both sites, which
means there is a convenient sample.

3.3.2 Setting
I conducted the study at two locations. One location is the Denton
campus of the University of North Texas. This is a large state
university with between 35,000 and 40,000 students seeking
degrees.
The campus is the site of the Institute of Applied
Science, an interdisciplinary research unit focused on human
interaction with the environment, and solutions to environmental
problems. The other location is the Blacksburg campus of
Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech is a large state university with
nearly 30,000 students in degree-seeking programs. Several units
at Virginia Tech have faculty in relevant research areas. These
include the College of Natural Resources and Environment, the
College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, the College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering. Both universities have teaching and
research faculty and graduate students focused on education,
outreach, and research directed at environmental problems,
sustainability, conservation, and human interaction with the
environment and its natural resources.

3.3.3 Actors
I interviewed faculty at the UNT Institute of Applied Sciences.
The faculty members of the Institute of Applied Sciences are a
target audience of potential users of the Scholarly Works
Collection in the UNT Digital Library.
I interviewed faculty at Virginia Tech in relevant areas of research
and instruction. The faculty members are a subgroup of potential
users of the VTechWorks Institutional Repository.

3.3.4 Events
During the interviews, I asked the participants in the study
questions about their research and instructional activities, their use
of digital libraries and repositories, and their perceived barriers to
access and adoption.

3.3.5 Process
The study gathered data through semi-structured interviews. I
asked questions of the participants, preferably face-to-face,
though in some cases due to the travel schedules of faculty
members some interviews may take place using VOiP software or
a telephone. I recorded data with a digital audio recorder for
interviews, and I transcribed interviews. I also took descriptive
and reflective notes during the interviews.

3.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Data analysis will occur through an iterative process of
identifying and labeling common themes in the interviews and
observations. The first step for analyzing the interview data is
transcribing recorded interviews. Then I will use the qualitative
research software NVivo to help me annotate transcriptions with
terms representing concepts that I discover. Using word search
features, I will add concept terms and apply them throughout the
transcribed interviews wherever I believe those concepts occur. I
will organize occurrences of the concept terms into themes.
The dominant themes that emerge from the interviews will be the
main findings of this study.

3.5 Validation
Validation of findings in this study will occur through several
strategiestriangulation, member-checking, and clarification of
bias.

Triangulation occurs by collecting data from two sites in order to

justify the themes defined in data analysis and interpretation. I
will engage in member-checking by sharing the themes with the
interview participants before I publish the final findings to
determine whether they feel the themes accurately represent what
they expressed in the interviews and felt during the observations.
I will include their views of the findings in the final report. I will
clarify the bias that I bring to the study by explaining my
relationship to the participants and to the institutions that are the
sites of the research.

4. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Informal analysis has only covered the data sharing aspects of the
study thus far. Early analysis indicates a number of overlapping,
and at times conflicting views about providing free online access
to research data.
Nearly all participants see value in sharing research data. The
faculty members who saw little value in sharing their data
believed that their data was too narrow to be useful in a different
study.
Other reasons for hesitating to share research data included
concern about IRB compliance and the protection of research
subjects. Another common reason some participants did not want
to share their data was the amount of work required to organize
the data to make it useful to someone else.
While many researchers felt that sharing data was necessary for
transparency of the scientific process, some were concerned that
their data could be taken out of context and politicized. These
participants were all senior faculty.
Faculty who already have tenure were more likely to speak
favorably about data sharing to improve the transparency of the
scientific process and some indicated they would appreciate
having any impact at all (on environmental policy, for example).
Many junior faculty members expressed concern about their
ability to publish the findings on their own data before someone
else could.
Interview transcription is ongoing and has not undergone any
formal clustering or post-collection validation. The conclusions
drawn in this preliminary reading will be subjected to memberchecking and may guide future research design in order to gather
data from larger sample and produce generalizable findings.

5. EXPECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
This study confines itself to interviews and observations of
environmental studies faculty at two large, PhD granting, public
research universities. The sample and the setting reduce the
generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, as a qualitative
study the data could produce alternative findings and be subject to
alternative interpretations.
The preliminary findings support and build on the conclusions of
related studies [24][25], though most of the participants in this
study seemed to be more aware of and expressed attitudes more in
favor of open access publishing than the participants in the two
cited studies. Whether this difference reflects changing attitudes
towards open access in the last several years, or if it is a reflection
of the sample is not determined.
The major contributions of the research will fall under two
categoriespractical and theoretical.
The practical contributions will include recommendations for
incentive mechanisms to foster faculty acceptance and use of

library services to provide open access dissemination of research

findings through data sharing and repository deposit. Such
recommendations may include more specific guidelines from
funding agencies so that principle investigators better understand
the expectations.
The recommendations will also include
improvements to institutional repository interfaces and
infrastructure so that institutional repositories can automatically
discover and harvest faculty research. Institutions with Open
Access mandates in place could use discovery and harvest tools to
automatically populate repositories so that the onus of depositing
is not on the researcher but on the institution.
The research will be useful to institutions developing institutional
repository services by helping help developers and administrators
understand the priorities of faculty partners and stakeholders. The
research will also serve liaison librarians who work closely with
environmental studies faculty. The findings will help both
commercial publishers and advocates for open access publishing
understand a key interdisciplinary constituency.
The theoretical contributions of this study may add to discussions
on Theory of Reasoned Action and social-technical systems
theory.
Future research will build on this study and include the use of a
different research paradigm, strategy, and methodology in order to
produce more generalizable findings.

6. REFERENCES
[1] Association
of
Research
Libraries,
Scholarly
Communication. Association of Research Libraries.
[2] Association of Research Libraries, To Stand the Test of
Time: Long-term Stewardship of Digital Data Sets in
Science and Engineering. Association of Research
Libraries, Sep-2006.
[3] National Institutes of Health, Final NIH Statement on
Sharing Research Data, NOT-OD-03-032, 26-Feb-2003.
[Online].
Available:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD03-032.html. [Accessed: 15-Apr-2013].
[4] J. P. Holdren, Memorandum for the heads of executive
departments and agencies: Increasing access to the results
of federally funded scientific research. Executive Office
of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
22-Feb-2013.
[5] C. A. Lynch, Institutional repositories: Essential
infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age., Arl
Bimon. Rep., no. 226, Feb. 2003.
[6] N. F. Foster and S. Gibbons, Understanding Faculty to
Improve
Content
Recruitment
for
Institutional
Repositories, D-Lib Mag., vol. 11, no. 1, Jan. 2005.
[7] D. Salo, Innkeeper at the Roach Motel, Libr. Trends, vol.
57, no. 2, pp. 98123, 2008.
[8] C. S. McDowell, Evaluating Institutional Repository
Deployment in American Academe Since Early 2005
Repositories by the Numbers, Part 2, D-Lib Mag., vol. 13,
no. 9/10, Oct. 2007.
[9] C. Thomas and R. H. McDonald, Measuring and
Comparing Participation Patterns in Digital Repositories:
Repositories by the Numbers, Part 1, D-Lib Mag., vol. 13,
no. 9/10, Oct. 2007.
[10] P. M. Davis and M. J. L. Conolly, Institutional
Repositories: Evaluating the Reasons for Non-use of
Cornell Universitys Installation of DSpace, D-Lib Mag.,
vol. 13, no. 3/4, Apr. 2007.

[11] J. C. Wallis and C. L. Borgman, Who is Responsible for

Data? An Exploratory Study or Data Authorship,
Ownership, and Responsibility, Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
Technol., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 110, Oct. 2011.
[12] Karen E. Fisher and Heidi Julien, Information behavior,
Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 173,
2009.
[13] D. O. Case, Information Behavior, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci.
Technol., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 293327, 2006.
[14] J. Palmer, Scientists and information: II. personal factors in
information behavior, J. Doc., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 254275,
1991.
[15] M. Khoo, Ethnography, Evaluation, and Design as
Integrated Strategies: A Case Study from WES, in
Research and Advanced Technoogy for Digital Libraries,
London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag, 2001, pp. 263274.
[16] M. Witt, J. Carlson, D. S. Brandt, and M. H. Cragin,
Constructing Data Curation Profiles, Int. J. Digit.
Curation, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 93103, 2009.
[17] J. Carlson, Demystifying the data interview: Developing a
foundation for reference librarians to talk with researchers
about their data, Ref. Serv. Rev., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 723,
2012.
[18] J. M. Scaramozzino, M. L. Ramrez, and K. J. McGaughey,
A Study of Faculty Data Curation Behaviors and
Attitudes at a Teaching-Centered University, Coll. Res.
Libr., vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 349365, Jul. 2012.

[19] A. Dillon and M. Morris, User Acceptance of Information

Technology:Theories and Models, in Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, vol. 31, M. Williams,
Ed. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 1996, pp. 332.
[20] R. Kling, G. McKim, and A. King, A bit more to it:
Scholarly Communication Forums as Socio-Technical
Interaction Networks, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., vol. 54, no. 1,
pp. 4767, Jan. 2003.
[21] J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative,
and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, 2003.
[22] T. D. Wilson, Alfred Schutz, phenomenology and research
methodology for information behaviour research, Isic4 Fourth Int. Conf. Inf. Seek. Context, Sep. 2002.
[23] S. L. Schensul, Essential ethnographic methods:
observations, interviews, and questionnaires, vol. 2.
Rowman Altamira, 1999.
[24] D. Harley, S. Earl-Novell, J. Arter, S. Lawrence, and C. J.
King, The Influence of Academic Values on Scholary
Publication and Communication Practices., J. Electron.
Publ., vol. 10, no. 2, Spring 2007.
[25] The University of California Office of Scholarly
Communication, The California Digital Library
eScholarship Program, and Greenhouse Associates,
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly
Communication: Survey Findings from the University of
California, Aug. 2007.