253

The Use of Institutional Repositories:
The Ohio State University Experience

Tschera Harkness Connell

Tschera Harkness Connell is Associate Professor and Head, Scholarly Resources Integration Department
at The Ohio State University Libraries; e-mail: Connell.17@osu.edu.

In this paper the author compares the use of digital materials that have
been deposited in The Ohio State University (OSU) Knowledge Bank (KB).
Comparisons are made for content considered in scope of the university
archives and those considered out of scope, for materials originating from
different campus sources, and for different types of content. Results show
that both mediated and unmediated content is used and therefore justifies
the preservation costs for unmediated content. Results also show articles
and undergraduate theses are most frequently used type of materials
leading to the conclusion that it is important to collect content from all
levels of the educational process.

ll institutional repositories face
the issue of content recruit-
ment. The fact that we speak of
recruitment rather than collec-

tion development implies that nonlibrar-
ians or nonarchivists have a major role
in what goes into the repository and by
extension, what is preserved. However,
for many universities, librarians and/or
archivists set the selection policy for the
institutional repository. This selective ap-
proach enables the library and archives to
decide where to commit tight resources
for long-term preservation and mainte-
nance. However, such policies have the
potential to diminish a sense of owner-
ship and participation among other units
on campus, thus making the repository
more a library/archives project than an
institutional initiative.

The goals for the institutional reposi-
tory (IR) determine its content. The con-
cept of the “Knowledge Bank” at the Ohio
State University began with a high-level

university task force on distance learn-
ing. After a year of work, this task force
approached the then- Director of Librar-
ies, Joseph J. Branin, with a conceptual
model for better managing and using
the intellectual digital assets of the insti-
tution.1 This history of interest beyond
the libraries has influenced greatly the
goals, policies, and management of the
Knowledge Bank. The responsibility for
getting content is a distributed one. From
its inception, the Knowledge Bank was
seen as a project of the university and not
of the libraries. The role of the libraries is
one of knowledge management providing
hardware, software, training, and support
to entities on campus wanting to make
available their digital assets. Many col-
lections originate with subject specialists
from the libraries and archives but there
are also many collections that originate
outside the libraries and archives.

In the summer of 2009, the staffs of the
libraries and the archives discussed ways

crl-134rl

254 College & Research Libraries May 2011

to increase collaboration between the two
units and to tag content contributed by
end-user communities that is also within
the scope of the archives. An offshoot
result was the desire to know more about
the use of IR content. In this paper, the
author examines the use of digital materi-
als that have been deposited in The Ohio
State University (OSU) Knowledge Bank
(KB) from three perspectives:

1) Are there differences in the fre-
quency of use of materials identified
by the archives as within scope of their
collections and all other materials in the
Knowledge Bank?

2) Are there differences in the frequen-
cy of use among categories of sources for
content? Categories of sources examined
are academic units, research centers, sup-
port units, and informal communities.

3) Are there differences in the fre-
quency of use among different types of
content? Type refers to the nature of the
materials; text and moving-image are
examples of two of the twenty types of
materials examined.

Literature Review
The literature on IRs consistently defines
their role as capturing, disseminating,
and preserving the intellectual output
of an institution.2 What is meant by
intellectual output is not so clear. Writ-
ers have described intellectual works,
narrowly, as scholarly works,3 and more
broadly as digital materials created by the
institution and its community members.4
A persistent theme is that the primary
content of IRs is intended to be faculty
research—preprints and postprints.
This theme is heavily reflected in early
definitions of IRs that emphasize IRs as
alternatives to scholarly publishing. As
early as 1994, the Association of Research
Libraries published an Internet discus-
sion subtitled a “subversive” proposal
for electronic publishing.5 Although this
discussion predates IRs, many of the is-
sues raised formed a rationale for their
development. The desire to provide
alternatives to traditional scholarly pub-

lishing is evident in the 2002 Scholarly
Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition
(SPARC) position paper on IRs. Raym
Crow writes that, defined broadly, “a
digital institutional repository could be
any collection of digital material”6 defined
by the institution; but, given the SPARC’s
emphasis on scholarly communication,
SPARC limits its definition to scholarly
material. In terms of repository goals,
SPARC emphasizes that content must be
cumulative and perpetual, and open and
interoperable.7 SPARC’s goal is to revise
the current model of scholarly publishing.

Clifford Lynch, likewise, sees IRs as a
means for “accelerating changes in schol-
arship and scholarly communication.”8
But he also writes of meeting the needs
of the local institutional community. He
defines IRs as “a set of services that a
university offers to the members of its
community for the management and
dissemination of digital materials cre-
ated by the institution and its community
members.”9 This definition emphasizes
the responsibility of the organization
in capturing, organizing, distributing,
and preserving the institution’s digital
assets—the services and collaboration of
multiple units of the institution. In terms
of content, Lynch includes documentation
of the activities of the institution as well
as research and pedagogical materials.

As the institutional repository experi-
ence expands, most writers tie content
of the IR to the purpose the individual
institutional repository is designed to
achieve. Sarah Shreeves and Melissa Cra-
gin write that “just as there is a range of
motivations driving the implementation
of IRs, the type of content contained in
repositories can also vary; this variation
is often dependent, of course, upon the
goal of the repository.”10 Susan Gibbons
notes that Lynch’s “set of services” is
undefined, because “to be successful
an IR must provide the set of services
needed by its unique community of us-
ers, and these services will and should
differ from institution to institution.”11
Marianne Buehler and Marcia Trauernicht

The Use of Institutional Repositories 255

note that “each institution has to make
its own philosophical decisions of what
items and types of materials are to be
included in an IR.”12 Julie Bobay writes
that the “original vision for institutional
repositories … was to support a world-
wide network of interoperable open-
access collections of journal articles that
had been formally published elsewhere”
but that for large academic libraries IRs
are “becoming more than repositories
of peer-reviewed articles.”13 The content
of Western Kentucky University’s re-
pository (TopSCHOLAR) is the “schol-
arly research, creative activity and other
full-text learning resources that merit
enduring and archival value and perma-
nent access.”14 The Rochester Institute of
Technology (RIT) libraries define their
content as “peer-reviewed intellectual
work, related to research and teaching
that also includes materials representing
RIT’s cultural, historical, and adminis-
trative documentation.”15 In addition to
peer-reviewed journal articles, Bobay
lists access to administrative records, dis-
sertations, grey literature, monographs,
small datasets, and retrospective issues of
published journals as content institutional
repositories may provide.16 A 2009 article
on the IR at Humboldt State University
(HSU) describes not only what is collected
but what is not. HSU repository collects
scholarship produced by HSU faculty,
students, and staff. Major emphasis is on
theses and projects produced by gradu-
ate students. Administrative records and
course materials are not included due to
the lack of resources for that additional
commitment.17

Related to what is collected is the issue
of who chooses what to collect. Gibbons,
when advising on the formulation of poli-
cies for an IR, asks this question: “Who
can make deposits into an IR: All mem-
bers of the organization or just one class
of members, such as academic faculty? …
Will all material be welcome or just those
approved by appointed people within the
organization?”18 Lynch places the respon-
sibility for building the collection on the

campus community as a whole. Although
acknowledging the practical resource
constraints such as having enough storage
space for large datasets, he argues:

that complex, cumbersome “gate
keeping” policies for admitting ma-
terials to institutional repositories—
particularly those that emulate
practices from traditional scholarly
publication such as the use of peer
reviewers—are highly counterpro-
ductive; this will prevent institu-
tional repositories from supporting
and empowering faculty innovators
and leaders. Membership in the
campus community—certainly, if
nothing else, membership in the
campus faculty—should be suffi-
cient credential to place materials in
the institutional repository.19

Crow takes a similar view in stating
that “the aim of institutional repositories
is to preserve the entire intellectual out-
put of the institution,”20 which he views
in contrast to archives where “university
archivists exercise broad discretion in de-
termining which papers and other digital
objects to collect and store.”21

Crow raises the issue of the relation-
ship of IRs and archives. University ar-
chives are charged with the responsibility
of maintaining university administrative
records and preserving materials related
to the history of the institution and the
activities of the campus community.
He also notes that IRs and archives can
complement each other or compete
with each other.22 Douglas Bicknese, an
archivist, notes that the “role of campus
archives is often overlooked”23 when IRs
are established. Looking at issues of selec-
tion, he notes that “trying to preserve the
entire intellectual output of an institu-
tion is a noble goal for an on-line digital
repository, although realistically some
appraisal of its contents will eventually
be required.”24 He offers the expertise
and experience of archivists for “selecting
records of enduring value” for an online

256 College & Research Libraries May 2011

digital repository (374, p. 88).25 Don Boa-
dle relates his experience of managing a
regional Australian archive. He makes
the point that, “like all university-based
combined function regional repositories,
our most pressing concern remains the
scarcity of resources in relation to the
number of functions we are expected to
perform.”26 Lack of resources and support
for IRs are a concern as Dorothea Salo
discusses in her 2008 article appraising
the state of IRs.27

Much of the literature on assessment of
IRs focuses the evaluation of the overall
system in terms of management, opera-
tion and sustainability. The Open Archival
Information System (OAIS) Reference
Model and the Trustworthy Repository
checklist are two frequently discussed
tools for planning and evaluating progress
of an institutional repository. In 2008, Yong
Ho Kim and Hyun Hee Kim analyzed 10
studies of digital libraries and IRs focusing
“on criteria and indicators of procedural
evaluation.”28 In their review of the lit-
erature they identified the inclusion and
quality of metadata to be a major consid-
eration in content evaluation. Metadata
quality indicators included number of
elements, completeness, accuracy, and
consistency. Other criteria for evaluat-
ing content include currency (number
of documents published in last 3 years
[% of total]), size, and diversity (number
of document types). They also looked at
indicators of use. Using the results of the
literature review as a base, they “devised
the diagnostic IR evaluation framework.”29
Testing that framework, they concluded
that the factors of use were the “most
crucial performance criterion.”30

Overall, the literature on evaluating the
content of IRs is limited and needed. Mar-
tha Whittaker writes that “accountability
and the emphasis on return on investment
make the assessment of the usage of digi-
tal resources essential.”31 This paper helps
fill the gap in the literature by examining
the use of digital materials that have been
deposited in The Ohio State University
(OSU) Knowledge Bank (KB).

Background
Description of OSU’s selection policy and
Knowledge Bank content
The Knowledge Bank is only one of sev-
eral media that OSU uses to distribute
its digital content. For example, OSU
mandates that student theses (Masters)
and dissertations are submitted to the
online OhioLINK Electronic Theses and
Dissertation Center. In addition, the li-
braries have deposited collections with
the OhioLINK Digital Media Center.
On campus, several enterprisewide sys-
tems are used for distributing scholarly
content. Carmen (Desire2Learn learning
technology) is used by OSU for the man-
agement of course content. The Colleges
of the Arts and Sciences offers a locally
developed tool, Media Manager, to help
faculty organize, share, and present digital
media files. Media Manager is not meant
to be a permanent archive but a working
space where faculty can develop resources
to share as part of their research and
teaching. The libraries publish current
electronic journals using both the Open
Journal System software and the Knowl-
edge Bank (DSpace software).

In this environment of multiple op-
tions, one of the roles of members of the
Knowledge Bank management team is
to refer potential content to the systems
best suited to the goals of the community
wanting to make the material available.
For example, if a group of faculty is
collaborating on the development of an
interdisciplinary learning module, they
may be referred to the staff of Media
Manager; or, if a faculty member wants
to limit distribution of the material to
current enrollment in her classes, she is
encouraged to use Carmen. The content in
the Knowledge Bank is openly accessible.
This attempt at a distributed approach to
knowledge management ties back to the
goals of the Knowledge Bank initiators.
By the time of the implementation of
DSpace at OSU, the original campuswide
committee had expanded their vision of
knowledge management to include:

The Use of Institutional Repositories 257

the full array of digital assets and
information services available to or
being created by OSU faculty, staff,
and students. Using this broader
definition, many components of
the Knowledge Bank already ex-
ist. … The institutional repository
then became another component,
yet to be built, within the larger
Knowledge Bank. The advantage
of this approach is that it promotes
integration of all forms of academic
digital content and the recognition
that seemingly independent initia-
tives are actually related.32

For clarity, in the remainder of this pa-
per, the term “knowledge management”
will be used when referring to the larger
vision (all the options); “Knowledge
Bank” will be used to refer to OSU’s pub-
lic installation of DSpace. Operationally,
OSU has emphasized the service aspect
of Lynch’s definition of an IR.

The OSU Knowledge Bank consists
of collections submitted by OSU
communities. A Knowledge Bank
‘community’ has an affiliation with
the Ohio State University, a focused
research interest, has a defined
OSU manager/director, and has the
ability to set community policies.
A community can be an academic
department, an administrative
unit, or an interdisciplinary center.
(The Ohio State University Knowl-
edge Bank Institutional Repository
Policies: http://library.osu.edu/sites/
kbinfo/policies.html).

It is difficult to give a meaningful
number of the collections in the KB be-
cause communities choose the granular-
ity at which they present materials and
organize their collections. Collections
may represent whole scrapbooks or in-
dividual photographs, issues of journals
or individual articles, or even abstracts.
Community responsibilities include selec-
tion, deciding policy regarding content to

be submitted, deciding who may submit
content, and limiting access to content
in accordance with the KB Access Policy.
Content that has access restrictions is
content that has been embargoed for a
period of time—one, three, or five years.

Units That Have Collections in the KB
There are 17 academic units (schools, col-
leges, and departments) that have collec-
tions in the Knowledge Bank. These units
include the Austin E. Knowlton School of
Architecture, the College of Pharmacy,
the Department of History, multiple units
within Food, Agricultural and Environ-
mental Sciences, the John Glenn School
of Public Affairs, the College of Social
Work, the School of Earth Sciences, and
the Newark campus of the university. The
collections of these academic units feature
the research of faculty, staff, and students
through articles, reports, working papers,
newsletters, and journals.

Eleven cross-disciplinary units (labo-
ratories, centers, and institutes) have
collections. Examples of units from this
group are the East Asian Studies Center,
the Institute for Excellence in Justice, the
Mershon Center for International Security
Studies, the Ohio Agricultural Research
and Development Center (OARDC), the
Ohio Water Resources Center, and the
Olentangy River Wetland Research Park.
In addition to research in various formats,
these collections contain lectures, speaker
series, seminars, and conferences in a
variety of formats (audio, video, and/or
textual).

Eleven support units have collections
in the KB. The Academy of Teaching,
the Council on Graduate Students, The
Honors and Scholars Program, the Uni-
versity Archives, the Office of Outreach
and Engagement, and the University
Libraries are examples of this group. The
Honors and Scholars Program theses col-
lections are some of our fastest growing
collections; the program strongly encour-
ages honors students to deposit their
undergraduate theses in the KB before
they graduate. The Council on Graduate

258 College & Research Libraries May 2011

Students submits the winners of multiple
discipline competitions from the Edward
F. Hayes Graduate Research Forum. These
support units also contribute newsletters,
research lectures, events (for example, a
video of a conference), and seminars.

Informal community groups also pro-
vide content. Examples from this group
are the Ohio State Digital Story Telling
community, the Gay community, and the
Ukrainian Cultural Association of Central
Ohio (which includes members from
the university community). Collections
from these communities include digital
stories, press releases, legal documents,
photographs, interviews, lectures, and
seminars.

There are several serials in the Knowl-
edge Bank. Some of these are current pub-
lications such as newsletters or current
journals that are using the KB for distribu-
tion. There are also retrospective serials.
Both current and retrospective serials are
present in the collections of communities
described above. In addition, the libraries
have added three runs of serials as their
own communities. The largest of these is
the Ohio Journal of Science (OJS), published
by the Ohio Academy of Science and
made available from 1900 to two years
prior to the current year in collaboration
with the libraries. This journal is one of
the most frequently used resources in the
Knowledge Bank. Two other retrospec-
tive serials have also been added by the
libraries as their own communities: The
Ohio Mining Journal (1882–1899) and the
Ohio State Engineer (1918–1945).

Institutional repositories such as the
Knowledge Bank require resources to
acquire, upgrade, and maintain hardware
and software and to staff and manage the
repository program. Good stewardship
demands that managers of repositories
evaluate their efforts. Since 2004, several
internal assessments have been made by
members of the Digital Initiatives Steer-
ing Committee (DISC) of the libraries. In
2007, a gap analysis of OSUL’s compli-
ance (in terms of the KB) with the Re-
search Libraries Group and the National

Archives and Records Administration
(RLG-NARA) Task Force’s Trustworthy
Repository standard was performed. In
2008, members reviewed the OSU Librar-
ies’ compliance with the Open Archival
Information System (OAIS) Functional
Model. Also in 2008, a subcommittee of
DISC performed a general assessment
of the operations of the KB. In 2009, the
management of the KB initiated a users’
group of representatives of KB commu-
nities to gather feedback on services and
next steps. This research study reported
here is the first to look at the frequency
of use of materials in the KB.

In this paper, one of the specific com-
parisons of use is between materials iden-
tified by the archives as within the scope
(referred to as In-Scope) of their collec-
tions and all other materials (Out-Scope)
in the Knowledge Bank. In some ways,
the goals for the KB and the mission of the
University Archives overlap. Both may
be collecting material within the scope
of the Archives. “The Archives identifies,
preserves, and makes available the docu-
mentation of continuing and historical
value in documenting the University.”
(http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/)
The KB model to help manage and use the
intellectual digital assets of the institution
has resulted in a nonrestrictive policy for
what is accepted for deposit. The content
of the Knowledge Bank includes content
of historical value in documenting the
university, but it includes other materials
as well. The archives use the Knowledge
Bank to present and preserve some of the
materials that they are charged to collect.
Today’s technological environment makes
it easy for campus units to create and
distribute materials that may be of inter-
est to University Archives but are never
brought to the attention of archives staff.
The Knowledge Bank provides one more
way of informing archivists of material of
potential interest. In 2009, in addition to
the Knowledge Bank Archives collections,
university archivists identified items in
other collections that they considered to
be of historical value for the university.

The Use of Institutional Repositories 259

This study compares the frequency
of use of materials In-Scope and Out-
Scope. The frequency use of materials is
compared among different categories of
sources for the material: academic units,
research centers, support units, and infor-
mal communities. Finally, the frequency
of use of different types of materials is
compared.

Methods
In the DSpace software, materials are or-
ganized by items within a collection. Each
item consists of metadata and bitstreams
(units of content). An item may have
multiple bitstreams. An example of an
item with multiple bitstreams might be a
multivolume book. The item is the whole
work, but the content of the work may be
contained in multiple bitstreams, perhaps
one bitstream for each volume. This study
looked at the use of bitstreams that were
deposited in the KB prior to June 1, 2009.
Use data were collected for January 1,
2007, through May 31, 2009.

For the purposes of this study, a use
is defined as a single download of a
bitstream. Although downloads do not
necessarily show that the content is
used, downloads show, at least poten-
tially, more interest in the content than
simply hits on the metadata describing
the content.

All KB collections except the Byrd
Expedition Photo Albums of the Byrd
Polar Research Center and the OSU
International Symposium on Molecular
Spectroscopy community collections
of abstracts were included in the study.
There are four photo albums of the

1928–1930 Byrd Antarctic Expedition.
Each photo in the albums is an individual
bitstream and is represented by its own
descriptive metadata. However, because
many of the photos in the albums have
very similar metadata, it is almost impos-
sible to locate an individual photo.33 The
collections of abstracts from the sympo-
siums on molecular spectroscopy were
omitted because the abstract contained in
the bitstream is repeated in the metadata
for the item. The version of the abstracts
in the metadata has been encoded with
TeX to facilitate searching by symbols
and chemical formulas. The implication
in terms of this study is that a user can
view the content of the abstract without
downloading the bitstream. Therefore,
downloads for these collections may not
have the same meaning as downloads for
other collections.

Use data were collected using AWStats,
an open source logfile analyzer available
from the open source software develop-
ment Web site, SourceForge (http://aw-
stats.sourceforge.net/). The “Pages—URL
(full list)” portion of the AWStats report
provided the number of downloads of the
URL for each bitstream that was down-
loaded; collection and item level hits were
eliminated from the data.

Calculations were performed by the
use of each bitstream and for the use of
each collection. (See table 1.)

To illustrate the definitions in the table,
consider the Digital Stories Collection in
the Digital Storytelling Community. In
2007, there were 2 bitstreams in this col-
lection. Bitstream #1 was downloaded 24
times in five months. Bitstream #1 use:

Table 1
Definitions of Use

Definitions of Use Description
Bitstream use: Mean number
of downloads per month

Sum of number of downloads of the bitstream for the
year divided by the number of months the bitstream is
in the KB

Collection use: mean bitstream
use per collection

Sum of “bitstream use” for all bitstreams in the col-
lection divided by the number of bitstreams in the
collection

260 College & Research Libraries May 2011

24/5 = 4.8. Bitstream #2 was downloaded
41 times in five months. Bitstream #2 use:
41/5 = 8.2. The collection use is 6.5—the
sum of the bitstream uses (4.8 + 8.2) divid-
ed by the two bitstreams in the collection.

Collections in the Knowledge Bank
were analyzed as individual collections
even in instances where communities
of content were presented to the public
as multiple collections based on chrono-
logical periods. Divided collections fell
into two categories: publications (serials)
where individual years were presented as
a collection and recurring events (confer-
ences and speaker series) where each con-
ference or series is presented as a single
collection. Examples of the first case are
Empirical Musicology Review (EMR) and
The Ohio Journal of Science (OJS). The four
separate collections representing four
years of EMR and the 6,546 collections of
OJS, each representing a separate issue,
were analyzed as separate collections. An
example of recurring events collections is
the National Symposiums on Doctoral Re-
search in Social Work. The 21 Individual
years were analyzed as 21 collections.

The first research question requires a
comparison of the use of In-Scope and
Out-Scope materials. In the summer of
2009, the staff of the University Archives
identified content that was outside their
own KB community but that they ap-
praised as having continuing value to
OSU’s history. This information was
shared with staff responsible for the day-
to-day operations of the KB in the form of
a list. The managers of the KB agreed to
add to the metadata an indication of the
Archives’ interest in the items, thus mov-
ing these items to the In-Scope category.
As well, University Archives are notified
of new collections to determine if they
should be added to the list. This list is
the source for identifying In-Scope col-
lections to compare with other materials
in the KB. The null hypothesis is that the
use of In-Scope and Out-Scope collections
is the same.

The second research question requires
a comparison of the use of materials from

different sources. The categories are de-
scribed above in the “Units That Have
Collections in the KB” portion of this pa-
per. The source categories compared are
academic units, research centers, support
units, and informal communities. The
libraries’ retrospective serial preservation
projects fall with other library content
under the support unit category. The null
hypothesis is that the use of bitstreams
from each source is equal to the use of
bitstreams of each of the other sources.

The third research question requires
a comparison of the use of materials of
different types. For this research, the
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)
definition of type is used. Type is defined
as the nature or genre of the resource
(http://dublincore.org/groups/collec-
tions/collection-application-profile/index.
shtml#vocabs). The DCMI types used to
categorize content in this study are: Event,
Moving Image, Sound, Still Image, and
Text. The types and their definitions as
used in this study are included in table 2.
In addition, “text” was broken down into
subcategories to get a more granular view
of the data. The subcategories of text used
in this study are: abstract, annual report,
article, book or book chapter, data, diary,
journal (downloads of entire issues, not
articles), newsletter, official university
document, oral history, plan or blueprint,
poster, presentation (written text of pre-
sentation), proceedings, promotional
materials (fliers and press releases), slides
(presentation slides), technical report,
thesis (honors theses), working paper.
Material that does not fit into the other
textual categories such as handouts, re-
sources to accompany presentations, best
practices, and syllabi) were categorized as
“other text.” The null hypothesis is that
the use of the bitstreams of each type are
equal to the use of the bitstreams of each
other type. The second null hypothesis is
that the use of each of the subcategories
of text is equal to the use of each of the
other subcategories.

T-tests were used to determine if there
was a real difference between bitstream

The Use of Institutional Repositories 261

use of the groups tested. For example,
the bitstream use for text was 9.7 and the
bitstream use for event was 5.0 in 2007.
A t-test was performed to see if the dif-
ference was great enough that it was not
likely to be the result of chance alone.
In all cases where t-tests were used, the
t-tests were two-tailed, and an unequal
variance was presumed.

Analysis and Results
Comparison of the use of materials identified
by the archives as within scope of their col-
lections and the out-of-scope materials in the
Knowledge Bank

The data in table 3 show that the
bitstreams identified as within scope
of the university archive collections are
downloaded less frequently than the bit-
streams considered out of scope. Making
the assumption that the bitstreams in this
study are a representative sample of the
KB content at a future date, and perform-
ing a t-test between the groups for each
year shows that the differences in use are
significant. For all years the results are
significant at a level less than .00l. (2007

p-value <.001; 2008 p-value <.001; 2009 p-
value <.001) The null hypothesis is rejected.

Figures 1–3 graphically show the dif-
ferences in use.

Analysis was also performed eliminat-
ing the retrospective journal collections
(Ohio Journal of Science, The Ohio Mining
Journal, and the Ohio State Engineer).
These three journals represented over 57
percent (8896/15490) of all the bitstreams
in the collections considered out of scope.
The Ohio Journal of Science, especially, is
heavily used so the additional analysis
was to determine whether the use of these
three journals overwhelmed the results
of the comparison of use for all other
bitstreams. The results of the comparison
with the three journals eliminated shows
a significant difference in use for 2008 and
2009. (2007 p-value =.10; 2008 and 2009 p-
values <.001) For 2007, the null hypothesis
is accepted. For 2008 and 2009, the null
hypothesis is rejected.

Comparison of the Use of Materials from
Different Sources
The second research question required

Table 2
Working Definitions of Types

DCMI Type Definition
Event Used for summaries of events, conference programs, and promotional

web pages, etc.
Moving Image Used for streaming video, including videos of presentations
Sound Used for streaming audio, including audio of presentations
Still Image Used for drawings, photos, and images of woodcuts
Text Used for bitstreams other than those in the above categories

Table 3
Comparison of Use of bitstreams between Materials within Scope for the

archives and Materials Not in Scope for the archives
2007 2008 2009
In-

Scope
Out-of-
Scope

In-
Scope

Out-of-
Scope

In-
Scope

Out-of-
Scope

No. of collections 1,247 8,384 2,370 11,184 2,513 15,450
Average collection use per month
per bitstream

3.6 10.4 2.8 8.2 2.2 5.0

262 College & Research Libraries May 2011

a comparison of the use of bitstreams by
the source of the collection in which they
were contained. Table 4 shows the num-
ber of collections from each source and
the source average use. Comparing the
use of materials from each type of source
with the use of each of the other types
of sources indicates that there were no
significant differences in use of bitstreams
between the types of sources. For 2007,
the p-values ranged between .25 and .97.
For 2008, p = .45–.84; for 2009, p = .29–.88.

For example, a t-test comparing the use
of bitstreams from academic units and
the use of bitstreams from informal units
returned the following p-values: 2007 = .44;
2008 = .84; 2009 = .67. A t-test comparing
the use of bitstreams from research centers
and support units returned the following
p-values: 2007 = .74; 2008 = .75; 2009 = .88.

A second comparison was performed
for the different sources, eliminating the
bitstreams of three retrospective journals
from the support unit source. The second

fIgUre 1
Comparison of average Use for Collections in Scope and Out of Scope of

University archives: 2007

16 7 2 1 2

270
293

253

30
55

0 to 3.9 4 to 7.9 8 to 11.9 12 to 15.9 16 to 19.9 >=20

N
u

m
b

er
o

f
C

o
lle

c�
o

n
s

Uses per Month

Collec�ons Average Bitstream Use 2007
In-Scope Out-of-Scope

fIgUre 2
Comparison of average Use for Collections in Scope and Out of Scope of

University archives: 2008

17 2 1 1 4

232

396

192

71
41 46

0 to 3.9 4 to 7.9 8 to 11.9 12 to 15.9 16 to 19.9 ≥20

N
u

m
b

er
o

f
C

o
lle

c�
o

n
s

Uses per Month

Collec�ons Average Bitstream Use 2008

In Scope Out of Scope

The Use of Institutional Repositories 263

sound bitstreams in 2009. In all other cases
where comparisons are applicable, the
null hypotheses are rejected. (See table 5
for results of the comparisons.)

Because of the large proportion of
bitstreams (35,031/37,289, or 94%) cat-
egorized as text, comparisons of use were
made for different types of text. Text was
divided into 20 subtypes: abstract, an-
nual report, article, book or book chapter,
data, diary, journal, newsletter, official
university document, oral history, plan
or blueprint, poster, presentation, pro-
ceedings, promotional materials, slides,
technical report, other text, thesis, and
working paper. The use of each subtype
was compared with the use of each other
subtype. For example, the use of abstracts
was compared with the use of annual

analysis also resulted in no significant
difference in use. The null hypothesis is
accepted.

Comparison of the Use of Materials of
Different Types.
The results for t-tests for each pair of types
show that, in most cases, the differences
in use are significant at a confidence level
of 95 percent or above. In some cases, the
comparison could not be made because
all types of bitstreams were not present in
the KB for all years. The null hypothesis
that the use of “event” bitstreams and
“moving image” bitstreams is the same
is accepted for all of the three years.
Similarly, the null hypothesis is accepted
for the use of event bitstreams and sound
bitstreams, and for image bitstreams and

fIgUre 3
Comparison of average Use for Collections in Scope and Out of Scope of

University archives: 2009

16 4 0 0 2

315

436

135

47
15 22

0 to 3.9 4 to 7.9 8 to 11.9 12 to 15.9 16 to 19.9 ≥20

N
u

m
b

er
o

f
C

o
lle

c�
o

n
s

Uses per Month

Collec�ons Average Bitstream Use 2009

In Scope Out of Scope

Table 4
Use by Source of Material

Source 2007 2008 2009
Number of
collections

Average
use

Number of
collections

Average
use

Number of
collections

Average
use

Academic unit 629 4.2 791 4.8 799 3.8
Informal
community

15 9.7 42 8.3 97 8.2

Research Center 866 7.9 1951 5.1 2360 3.7
Support unit 8,121 10.1 10,770 7.8 11,654 6.0

264 College & Research Libraries May 2011

reports, and articles, and books or book
chapters, and so on. If all of the subtypes
had been present for all three years, there
would be 57 comparisons per type (19
per year times 3). However, two of the
subtypes were not present all years. Of-
ficial university documents were present
for only 2008 and 2009; data were only
present in 2009. In all, 1,018 comparisons
were made. (A complete list can be found
in the appendix.)

Of the 1,018 comparisons, nearly half
(502/1,018) showed significant differences
in use at a .05 level of significance. Figure
4 reflects the 502 instances of significant
differences in use. The 20 subtypes are
ranked by the portion of cases where use
was significantly higher than for other
types. For example: Article was compared
54 times; 42 of the comparisons resulted
in significant differences in use. Of those
42, article was used more frequently 41
times; less frequently one time; and about
the same 13 times (that is to say, no signifi-
cant difference in use). The one instance
when article was used less frequently than
another subtype was in 2008 when diary

was used more. However, for 2007, article
was used more frequently; and, in 2009,
it was used the same amount.

At the other extreme, in 54 compari-
sons of the use of plans or blueprints with
other subtypes, there were 28 significant
differences in use. In only one instance
were plans used more than another sub-
type (plans were used more than official
university documents in 2008). In 27 in-
stances, plans were used less frequently
than other types; and, in 26 instances,
there were no differences in use.

Discussion
There is clearly a difference in use of
materials identified by the archives as
within scope of their collections and the
out-of-scope materials in the Knowledge
Bank. This difference remains even when
large runs of retrospective journals are
removed from consideration.

What this means is not so clear. Many of
the documents in the University Archives
Knowledge Bank collections are also avail-
able on the university’s Web sites, espe-
cially if the content is current. Examples

Table 5
Significance of results of Comparison of bitstream

Use between Types: p-values*
Types Compared Average

Bitstream
Use 2007

2007
p-value

Average
Bitstream
Use 2008

2008
p-value

Average
Bitstream
Use 2009

2009
p-value

Event / Image 1.8 / 0.4 < .001
Event / Moving Image 5.0 / 4.5 .558 3.1 / 3.0 .984 1.8 / 2.4 .260
Event / Sound 3.1 / 0.1 < .001 1.8 / 1.4 .279
Event / Text 5.0 / 9.7 < .001 3.1 / 7.6 < .001 1.8 / 6.2 < .001
Image / Moving Image 0.4 / 2.4 < .001
Image / Sound 0.4 / 1.4 .018
Image / Text 0.4 / 6.2 < .001
Moving Image / Sound 3.0 / 0.1 < .001 2.4 / 1.4 .100
Moving Image / Text 4.5 / 9.7 < .001 3.0 / 6.2 < .001 2.4 / 6.2 < .001
*measure of how rare the result would be if the null hypothesis were true
Difference in use significant when p < .05
bold indicates type with greatest use, when difference is significant
Blank = Not applicable; one of the types had no bitstreams

The Use of Institutional Repositories 265

include the Board of Trustees Bylaws, the
Code of Student Conduct, and the Rules of
the University. The Fifteenth Day Enroll-
ment Highlights (for each quarter) have
both current and retrospective content,
but this collection is an exception. Even
in cases where the content considered in
scope for the archives but is in other col-
lections, the content may be also available
on the university’s Web. Two examples are
the videos of the University Distinguished
Lectures and the conference material of
the Mershon Center for International Se-
curity Studies. In both these cases, the con-
tent is currently available from the Office
of Academic Affairs site and the Mershon
Center’s site respectively. These Web sites
are older than the Knowledge Bank and
likely have users who are accustomed to
going to the Web sites for information and
have had no need to get this information
from the Knowledge Bank. Over time this
may change as the content of the sites

change. If older material is removed from
the sites, it will still be available from the
Knowledge Bank.

A related issue is how the archives are
used. By their nature, archives are his-
torical collections. The Knowledge Bank
is six years old and most of the material
identified as of interest to the archives is
not yet historical. As well, the materials of
interest to the Archives are not extensive.
The Archives Knowledge Bank collec-
tions are still being established. Without
a critical mass, it is difficult to know how
these collections will be used. In this case,
a comparison with use ten years from now
will be helpful.

Future availability points out another
important purpose of archives:

Institutional archivists who use a
digital repository for administra-
tive records employ it not only for
informational purposes but also evi-

fIgUre 4
Text Types ranked by Portion of Significantly greater Use

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Ar�cle

Thesis

Data

Abstracts

Journal

Poster

Diary

Book or book chapter

Slides

Presenta�on

Proceedings

Oral history

Other text

Promo�onal materials

Working paper

Annual report

Technical report

Newsle�er

Official university doc

Plan or Blueprint

Text Types Ranked by Por�on of Significantly
Greater Use

Por�on of significally greater use

266 College & Research Libraries May 2011

dential. In the latter case, use is only
part of the rationale, the other being
the importance of the documents in
providing evidence for administra-
tive, legal, and historical reasons of
the functions and transactions of the
organization.34

From this perspective, use cannot be
the only metric for evaluating archives
content in an institutional repository.
However, even without knowing whether
the use of material of interest to the
archives is indicative of future use, or if
archives content is fulfilling other pur-
poses, the results of this study show that
nonmediated selection of materials has
yielded content that is used.

The second research question ad-
dressed the issue whether there were
differences in use between different
sources of material. The four sources
examined were academic units, informal
groups, research centers, and support
units. The speculation was that these
different units would offer content that
was different in nature from the con-
tent of the other sources. For example,
perhaps the research centers archived
research results, but the informal groups
archived material more documentary in
nature. Perhaps the academic units ar-
chived faculty papers, while the support
units archived policies, procedures, and
content that could be considered refer-
ence in nature. However, there were no
differences in the use of bitstreams from
the four sources defined in this study. A
closer examination of the bitstreams from
each of the sources revealed that all the
sources had a broad range of content.
Research centers, academic and support
units documented conferences, archived
research papers, and posted videos of
lectures. All four of the groups contained
primary sources. The use of “sources”
as defined in this study was not a good
way to look at differences in the nature
or purposes of the content.

There were differences in the amount
of use for the different types of content. In

all cases, text was most used and images
were least used. Images in the Knowledge
Bank are not well presented, which could
be one factor in their low use. Users of
images need to be able to zoom and to
browse, neither of which is possible in the
current version of the Knowledge Bank.

Ninety-four percent of Knowledge
Bank content is text. Text is by far the most
used type of material. It is not known if
this result is due to the predominance of
text in the Knowledge Bank or whether it
represents a true preference on the part of
users. Additional study is needed.

An examination of 20 subtypes of text
reveals that articles and theses are the
most used. In many ways, articles and
theses are similar. They are both a record
of research. The principal difference is
that theses are the work of undergraduate
students, while articles can be the work
of faculty or students. However, most
articles in the Knowledge Bank are the
work of faculty or graduate students. This
study shows that these forms of reporting
research results are the most frequently
used types of text in the Knowledge Bank.

Posters, presentations, and slides are
all media for documenting oral presen-
tations. These three text types fall lower
on the ranked list of types use when
compared with articles, theses, data, ab-
stracts, and journals. Oral presentations
are often new information, presented be-
fore it is written and published. It would
be useful to know why formerly pub-
lished material is used more frequently.
One possibility is that the Knowledge
Bank is open access, which allows people
anywhere free access to the information.
For journal articles, open access provides
an avenue to the content without cost
to the user. For theses, the content is
unique and is distributed through the
Knowledge Bank. Another possibility
is that articles, theses, and journals all
go through a process of review: articles
and journals by editors or peer reviewers
and theses by faculty advisors. Oral pre-
sentations, while timely, often are given
without prereview.

The Use of Institutional Repositories 267

The two types least used are plans or
blueprints and official university docu-
ments. Almost all the plans come from a
single collection, the Herrick archives. John
H. Herrick compiled building documenta-
tion for every known structure at The Ohio
State University from the inception of the
university in the 1870s through 1988. The
plans are drawings of the structures. The
fact that all the plans represent a single,
narrow topic is likely to limit their use. Of-
ficial university documents are a relatively
new addition to the Knowledge Bank; at
the time, the data gathered numbered only
64. Until more documents are collected,
they will probably have limited use. And,
as was noted in the results section, most of
these documents are also available on the
university’s Web site.

Conclusions
The results of this study begin to inform
an understanding of the use of materi-
als in the Knowledge Bank. Currently,
services relating to depositing material
in the Knowledge Bank are free to the
university community. If, at some point,
the libraries decide to charge for storage
of large collections, it would be interest-
ing to know how such a decision would
affect both the content and the use of
community collections.

Although there were differences in the
amount of use between materials in scope
and out of scope, the implications of this
result are not clear. Due to the fact that
Knowledge Bank materials out of scope to
the Archives are used significantly more
frequently, it is reasonable to conclude
that these materials are useful as well.
From this perspective, the results show
that nonmediated selection yields content
that is used and therefore justifies the
preservation costs.

The goal of determining whether
there were differences in use between
different sources of material was based
on the assumption that different units
offer content that was different in
nature from the content of the other
sources. The reasons that this was not
a good approach to the issue have been
discussed. Future research is needed
to determine whether the nature of the
content (research, policies, procedures)
is a determinant of use.

All types of materials that comprise
the Knowledge Bank are used and this
supports continuing to collect a variety
of types of material. Whether the fact
that text is used more frequently than
any other type of content is due to us-
ers’ preference for text or that text is
the most predominant form of content
in the Knowledge Bank has not been
determined.

The fact that undergraduate theses
rank almost as highly as articles under-
lines the importance of collecting content
from all levels of the educational process.
Future research can help to determine if
this result is due to the egalitarian nature
of the Internet, where a searcher has
no direct way of determining whether
results are peer reviewed. The results
of a study of download statistics for the
open access institutional repository at
the University of Wollongong, Austra-
lia, revealed that, during the six months
studied, 95.8 percent of the referrals
to the repository came from Google.
Most of these referrals linked directly
from the search results to the pdf of the
document.35 The extensive use of theses
and articles could also be evidence of a
cultural shift, in which users value ac-
cess and/or currency over peer-reviewed
information.

268 College & Research Libraries May 2011

abstract 2007 2008 2009 annual report 2007 2008 2009
Abstract +
Annual report -
Article + + + Article + + +
Book/book chapter + Book/book chapter + +
Data NA NA + Data NA NA +
Diary + Diary +
Journal + Journal + +
Newsletter - - Newsletter - - -
Official univ doc NA - - Official univ doc NA - -
Oral history Oral history
Plan or Blueprint - - Plan or Blueprint - - -
Poster + + Poster + +
Presentation + Presentation + +
Proceedings + + Proceedings - + +
Promo materials - Promo materials +
Slides + Slides +
Technical report Technical report
Text + Text + +
Thesis + + Thesis + + +
Working paper + Working paper

article 2007 2008 2009 book/book chapter 2007 2008 2009
Abstract - - - Abstract -
Annual report - - - Annual report - -
Article + +
Book/book chapter - -
Data NA NA - Data NA NA
Diary - + Diary +
Journal - - Journal + -

Appendix: Comparison of Each Text Subtype with
the Use of Each Other Text Subtype
Key:
A symbol in the cell means that the difference in use between the type listed in the
row and the type listed in the header is significant at the .05 level.

Plus "+" means that type listed in the row is used more frequently than type listed in header.

Minus "-" means that type listed in the row is used less frequently than type listed in header.

The Use of Institutional Repositories 269

Newsletter - - - Newsletter - - -
Official univ doc NA - - Official univ doc NA - -
Oral history - - - Oral history - -
Plan or Blueprint - - - Plan or Blueprint - - -
Poster - - - Poster + -
Presentation - - Presentation -
Proceedings - - Proceedings - +
Promo materials - - - Promo materials - -
Slides - - - Slides -
Technical report - - - Technical report -
Text - - Text
Thesis - Thesis + +
Working paper - - - Working paper -

Data 2007 2008 2009 Diary 2007 2008 2009
Abstract NA NA - Abstract -
Annual report NA NA - Annual report -
Article NA NA + Article + +
Book/book chapter NA NA Book/book chapter -
Data NA NA
Diary NA NA
Journal NA NA Journal + -
Newsletter NA NA - Newsletter - -
Official univ doc NA NA - Official univ doc NA -
Oral history NA NA - Oral history -
Plan or Blueprint NA NA - Plan or Blueprint - - -
Poster NA NA Poster + -
Presentation NA NA Presentation - -
Proceedings NA NA Proceedings - -
Promo materials NA NA - Promo materials -
Slides NA NA - Slides + -
Technical report NA NA - Technical report - -
Text NA NA Text -
Thesis NA NA Thesis +
Working paper NA NA Working paper -

Journal 2007 2008 2009 Newsletter 2007 2008 2009
Abstract - Abstract + +
Annual report - - Annual report + + +
Article + + Article + + +

270 College & Research Libraries May 2011

Book/book chapter - + Book/book chapter + + +
Data NA NA Data NA NA +
Diary - + Diary + +
Journal + + +
Newsletter - - -
Official univ doc NA - - Official univ doc NA -
Oral history - - - Oral history + + +
Plan or Blueprint - - - Plan or Blueprint - -
Poster - Poster + + +
Presentation - Presentation + +
Proceedings - + Proceedings + +
Promo materials - - - Promo materials + +
Slides - - Slides + + +
Technical report - Technical report +
Text Text + + +
Thesis + + Thesis + + +
Working paper - Working paper + + +

Official university
document

2007 2008 2009 Oral history 2007 2008 2009

Abstract NA + + Abstract
Annual report NA + + Annual report
Article NA + + Article + - +
Book/book chapter NA + + Book/book chapter + +
Data NA NA + Data NA NA +
Diary NA + Diary +
Journal NA + + Journal + + +
Newsletter NA + Newsletter - - -
Official univ doc NA - -
Oral history NA + +
Plan or Blueprint NA + - Plan or Blueprint - - -
Poster NA + + Poster + + +
Presentation NA + + Presentation + +
Proceedings NA + + Proceedings - + +
Promo materials NA + + Promo materials + -
Slides NA + + Slides + + +
Technical report NA + Technical report
Text NA + + Text + +
Thesis NA + + Thesis + +
Working paper NA + + Working paper

The Use of Institutional Repositories 271

Plan or blueprint 2007 2008 2009 Poster 2007 2008 2009
Abstract + + Abstract - -
Annual report + + + Annual report - -
Article + + + Article + +
Book/book chapter + + + Book/book chapter - -
Data NA NA + Data NA NA
Diary + + + Diary - +
Journal + + + Journal +
Newsletter + + Newsletter - - -
Official univ doc NA - + Official univ doc NA - -
Oral history + + + Oral history - - -
Plan or Blueprint - - -
Poster + + +
Presentation + + Presentation
Proceedings + + Proceedings - +
Promo materials + + + Promo materials - - -
Slides + + + Slides -
Technical report + + Technical report -
Text + + + Text
Thesis + + + Thesis + +
Working paper + + + Working paper -

Presentation 2007 2008 2009 Proceedings 2007 2008 2009
Abstract - Abstract - -
Annual report - - Annual report + - -
Article + + Article + +
Book/book chapter + Book/book chapter + -
Data NA NA Data NA NA
Diary + Diary + +
Journal + Journal + -
Newsletter - - Newsletter - -
Official univ doc NA - - Official univ doc NA - -
Oral history - - - Oral history + - -
Plan or Blueprint - - Plan or Blueprint - -
Poster Poster + -
Presentation + -
Proceedings + +
Promo materials - - Promo materials + - -
Slides - Slides + - -

272 College & Research Libraries May 2011

Technical report Technical report + - -
Text Text + -
Thesis + + Thesis +
Working paper Working paper + -

Promotional
materials

2007 2008 2009 Slides 2007 2008 2009

Abstract + Abstract -
Annual report + Annual report -
Article + + + Article + + +
Book/book chapter + + Book/book chapter - +
Data NA NA + Data NA NA +
Diary + Diary - +
Journal + + + Journal + +
Newsletter - - Newsletter - - -
Official univ doc NA - - Official univ doc NA - -
Oral history - + Oral history - - -
Plan or Blueprint - - - Plan or Blueprint - - -
Poster + + + Poster +
Presentation + + Presentation +
Proceedings - + + Proceedings - + +
Promo materials - - -
Slides + + +
Technical report Technical report
Text + + Text
Thesis + + + Thesis + +
Working paper - Working paper -

Tech report 2007 2008 2009 Text 2007 2008 2009
Abstract Abstract -
Annual report Annual report - -
Article + + + Article + +
Book/book chapter + Book/book chapter
Data NA NA + Data NA NA
Diary + Diary +
Journal + Journal
Newsletter - Newsletter - - -
Official univ doc NA - - Official univ doc NA - -
Oral history Oral history - -
Plan or Blueprint - - Plan or Blueprint - - -

The Use of Institutional Repositories 273

Poster + Poster
Presentation Presentation
Proceedings - + + Proceedings - +
Promo materials Promo materials - -
Slides Slides
Technical report -
Text +
Thesis + + Thesis +
Working paper Working paper

Thesis 2007 2008 2009 Working paper 2007 2008 2009
Abstract - - Abstract -
Annual report - - - Annual report
Article Article + + +
Book/book chapter - - Book/book chapter +
Data NA NA Data NA NA
Diary + Diary +
Journal - - Journal +
Newsletter - - - Newsletter - - -
Official univ doc NA - - Official univ doc NA - -
Oral history - - Oral history
Plan or Blueprint - - - Plan or Blueprint - - -
Poster - - Poster +
Presentation - - Presentation
Proceedings - Proceedings - +
Promo materials - - - Promo materials -
Slides - - Slides +
Technical report - - Technical report
Text - Text
Thesis + + +
Working paper - - -

Notes

1. Joseph J. Branin, “Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries: Building the Knowl-
edge Bank at the Ohio State University,” 11. Available online at http://hdl.handle.net/1811/187.
[Accessed 31 March 2011].

2. Patsy Baudoin and Margret Branschofsky, “Implementing an Institutional Repository: The
DSpace Experience at MIT,” Science & Technology Libraries 24, no. 1 (2003): 31–46; Raym Crow,
“The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper,” ARL Bimonthly Report, no. 223
(2002), available online at www.arl.org/bm~doc/instrepo.pdf [accessed 31 March 2011]; Miguel
Ferreira, Eloy Rodrigues, Ana Baptista, and Ricardo Saraiva, “Carrots and Sticks: Some Ideas on
How to Create a Successful Institutional Repository,” D-Lib Magazine 14, no. 1/2 (2008).

274 College & Research Libraries May 2011

3. Andreas Aschenbrenner, Tobias Blanke, David Franders, Mark Hedges, and Ben O’Steen,
“The Future of Repositories? Patterns for (Cross-) Repository Architectures,” D-Lib Magazine 14,
nos. 11/12 (2008).

4. Clifford A. Lynch, “Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in
the Digital Age,” portal: Libraries & the Academy 3, no. 2 (2003): 328.

5. Stevan Harnad, “Overture: The Subversive Proposal,” in Scholarly Journals at the Cross-
roads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing, eds. Ann Shumelda Okerson and James J.
O’Donnell (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1995). Available at www.arl.org/
sc/subversive/i-overture-the-subversive-proposal.shtml. [Accessed 31 March 2011].

6. Crow, “The Case for Institutional Repositories,” 16.
7. Ibid.
8. Lynch, “Institutional Repositories,” 327.
9. Ibid., 328.
10. Sarah L. Shreeves and Melissa H. Cragin, “Introduction: Institutional Repositories: Current

State and Future,” Library Trends 57, no. 2 (2008): 89–97.
11. Susan Gibbons, “Defining an Institutional Repository,” Library Technology Reports 40, no.

4 (2004): 6–10.
12. Marianne A. Buehler and Marcia S. Trauernicht, “From Digital Library to Institutional

Repository: A Brief Look at One Library’s Path,” OCLC Systems & Services 23, no. 4 (2007): 382–94.
13. Julie Bobay, “Institutional Repositories: Why Go There?” Indiana Libraries 27, no. 1 (2008): 7–9.
14. Jean-Gabriel Banker, Connie Foster, and Glen Wiley, “Institutional Repositories: Strategies

for the Present and Future,” Serials Librarian 56, nos. 1–4 (2009): 109–15.
15. Buehler and Trauernicht. “From Digital Library to Institutional Repository.” 383.
16. Bobay, “Institutional Repositories,” 7.
17. George Wrenn, Carolyn J. Mueller, and Jeremy Shellhase, “Institutional Repository on a

Shoestring,” D-Lib Magazine, 15, no. 1/2 (2009).
18. Susan Gibbons, “Potential Uses,” Library Technology Reports 40, no. 4 (2004): 4–19.
19. Lynch. “Institutional Repositories,” 333.
20. Crow, “The Case for Institutional Repositories,” 17.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Douglas Bicknese, “Institutional Repositories and the Institution’s Repository: What Is the

Role of University Archives with an Institution’s On-Line Digital Repository?” Archival Issues 28,
no. 2 (2003): 81–93.

24. Ibid., 88.
25. Ibid.
26. Don Boadle, “Academic or Community Resource? Stakeholder Interests and Collection

Management at Charles Sturt University Regional Archives, 1973–2003,” Australian Library Journal
52, no. 3 (2003): 273–86.

27. Dorothea Salo, “Innkeeper at the Roach Motel,” Library Trends 57, no. 2 (2008): 98–123.
28. Yung Ho Kim and Hyun Hee Kim, “Development and Validation of Evaluation Indicators

for a Consortium of Institutional Repositories: A Case Study of Collection,” Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology 59, no. 8 (2008): 1282–94.

29. Ibid., 1293.
30. Ibid.
31. Martha Whittaker, “The Challenge of Acquisitions in the Digital Age,” portal: Libraries &

the Academy 8, no. 4 (2008): 439–45.
32. Sally A. Rogers, “Developing an Institutional Knowledge Bank at Ohio State University:

From Concept to Action Plan,” portal: Libraries & the Academy 3, no. 1 (2003): 125-1-36. Available
at http://hdl.handle.net/1811/188. [Accessed 31 March 2011].

33. In addition, a systems developer recently discovered that the GoogleBot was indexing titles
of individual photograph bitstreams rather than the descriptive metadata for the items. Since
most of these images do not have individual titles, the instruction “View/Open” was harvested as
the title by Google. These two circumstances probably explain why in the 2 years and 5 months
during which time these 3,069 photos have been in the KB, there have been only a total of 126
downloads. The extreme lack of use of this collection makes it an anomaly; for this reason, the
album collections have been omitted from the study.

34. Raimond Goerler, e-mail dated Mar. 8, 2010.
35. Michael Organ, “Download Statistics: What Do They Tell Us?” D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 11

(2006). Available at www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/organ/11organ.html. [Accessed 31 March 2011].

Using Qualitative Methods in Action Research:
How Librarians Can Get to the Why of Data
Douglas Cook and Lesley Farmer, editors
This book explains the basic tenets of qualitative research in an
easily understandable fashion, and details action research proj-
ects that academic librarians can undertake with their patrons.
Part 1 provides a theoretical and practical overview of the pro-
cess of qualitative and action research. Part 2 includes reports of
a number of research projects on fairly common problems found
in libraries. The final section of the book includes examples of
qualitative research and assessment.

Scholarly Practice, Participatory Design and
the eXtensible Catalog
Nancy Fried Foster, Katie Clark, Kornelia Tancheva and
Rebekah Kilzer, editors
As part of the development of eXtensible Catalog (XC), four
institutions conducted eighty interviews and numerous work-
shops to understand how researchers learn about, acquire,
and use scholarly resources. In this volume, members of the
project team report on key findings of the user research that
was done at Cornell University, Ohio State University, the Uni-
versity of Rochester, and Yale University, and discuss the value
of including library users and technology specialists from many
disciplines in the software design and development process.

50 E. Huron, Chicago IL 60611 | 1.800.545.2433 | acrl @ala.org

Visit our ACRL publications online for more information
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/

Click on “Books & Monographs”

NEW & FORTHCOMING
publications