| dc.description.abstract | DSpace is fundamentally organized into discrete communities with different (though potentially overlapping) memberships. A community is an affiliated group who establishes the policies that govern who may contribute, what can be deposited, and how it will be organized. For example, a department would establish its own policies and collections. However, at the University of Kansas, in discussions with early adopters, the community structure is proving problematic. Based on policy discussions with early adopters, KU is considering additional approaches to community development in KU ScholarWorks <http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu>.
Scholarly practices tend not to be so strictly regulated that they create well-defined epistemic communities, nor are scholars necessarily interested in managing policies and collections. Are the English or the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology departments (for example) natural communities, with a common understanding of best practice in communicating their research? Will even the small amount of administrative overhead associated with community management (policy choices, authorizations, etc.) inhibit adoption of the technology? Research centers may represent an important exception. They are closer to natural epistemic communities than departments, which are more like federations of administrative convenience.
On the “DSpace Planning: Lessons Learned” page of the DSpace Federation Web site <http://dspace.org/implement/planning-lessons.html> one tip reads, “Faculty generally don’t submit their own content – department staff, web editors, or administrative staff do.” At KU, this is likely the case for research groups and centers. However, KU is highly decentralized, and this model will not necessarily apply. Faculty may enlist assistance in submitting items, but this will probably not be the norm. In order to accommodate formal and informal faculty groups, as well as individual scholars who may wish to participate in KU ScholarWorks, the University of Kansas is considering several community models.
Several types of communities would be supported in KU ScholarWorks: “formal” or established communities (such as Research Centers), ad hoc or informal communities, and a subject-based community.
1. Centers and research groups would have the option of establishing specific “formal” communities with specialized workflows and policies. These communities would most closely resemble those envisioned by DSpace developers. A person or small group would establish membership and policies, as well as manage submissions.
2. A subject-based community may consist of multiple collections, defined by a subject scheme. All collections in the subject-based community might have as members all KU faculty – i.e., all members of the University of Kansas faculty group might have deposit rights in any of the subject collections. We would centrally establish a common set of policies for this community, including:
a. Authorization (policy might be that only faculty may contribute, and work of others such as graduate students would have to be deposited by proxy)
b. Access (open access for all contributions; exceptions would be handled through a formal community)
c. Review (policy might be that all contributions would be reviewed for form by library staff before being released to the pubic)
3. A third community arrangement may consist of ad hoc “informal” communities, not defined by departmental structure, nor affiliated with a research center. These communities would be scholar- defined and driven and would reflect shared research interests. The community would be responsible for selecting an administrator, and establishing membership and policies. Members of the early adopters suggested this community type.
Holly Mercer and Richard Fyffe will give an overview of the environment and early adopter development process at KU, and will outline challenges of the proposed community types. We will discuss some of the technical constraints of the current and upcoming DSpace release (as well as desiderata for future development) in adopting a hybrid community structure. | |
