NB: This Is My Draft and Needs to Be Anonymised and Referenced

NB: This Is My Draft and Needs to Be Anonymised and Referenced

Kultivate Project Advocacy Toolkit: Advocacy Strategy

Advocacy Strategy

Deliver the message 3 times, in 3 different ways to 3 different people.

Use interesting narrative, human interest stories and arresting imagery.

Devise a strap line.

Dominic Tate, Advocacy workshop, RSP Summer School, 4th June 2010

Available from: [last accessed: 12th July 2011]

Contents

  • Introduction
  • Background
  • List of stakeholder groups
  • Mission statement and aims
  • Objectives including communication methods and materials
  • Planning and timing
  • Mapping/matching of the information needs to the relevant stakeholders
  • Overview linking communication methods and materials to stakeholder groups
  • Evaluation of the project
  • Bibliography
  • Author's contact details

Introduction

This document is aimed at staff working with UK research repositories, it is part of the resources available through the JISC funded Kultivate project Advocacy toolkit. This Advocacy Strategy document has been customised for the University for the Creative Arts institutional research repository (UCA Research Online) but it is also made available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported) to other institutions.

The Kultivate Advocacy toolkit is available from:

More about the JISC funded Kultivate project is available from:

Background

This advocacy plan has been inspired by attendance at the Repository Support Project (RSP) Summer School,2nd - 4th June 2010, Madingley Hall, Cambridge. Further training and networking with other repository managers, during theRSPWinterSchool,four Kultivate community-led workshops, and other workshops and events,reiterated the fact that an advocacy plan is essential to the success of an institutional repository. An advocacy plan is a vehicle to ensure the following:

  • raising the profile of the institutional repository
  • initiating cultural change
  • encouraging and facilitating deposit of material
  • providing advice on issues surrounding IPR and copyright

This advocacy plan provides the necessary framework and guidance to ensure that clear and consistent messages are given to the stakeholders. It is essential to identify the needs of different stakeholders and match the relevant information to each group. A variety of communication methods can be used effectively to deliver these goals. It should also be understood that advocacy is an ongoing activity and there are costs related to travel, time and publicity material which need to be considered in financial planning.

List of stakeholder groups

Stakeholders fall into two categories: internal and external it is important to note that internal stakeholders are those who will be populating, using and promoting the institutional repository. External are those who are viewing, using, and therefore raising the profile of the institutional repository and this group is likely to include potential staff, students and employers.

Key:

Blue – Higher Education Institute management

Green – administrators

Violet – partners for promotional opportunities

Pink – depositors

Internal

Governors

Vice Chancellor

Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research

Director of Research and Enterprise

Pro-Vice Chancellor Learning and Teaching

Research Office

Research administrators/co-ordinators

Research staff (including technicians) and students

Heads of schools Heads of schools

EPrints - in terms of changes and/or improvements

Learning and development team

Library staff – faculty librarians

IT department

Marketing – publications

External

AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council)

ARLIS

Arts community – e.g. commissioners, employers, galleries

Arts researchers

Business companies

General public

HEFCE – Higher Education Funding Council for England

Kultur II Group/KULTIVATE

Local business community

The media

Publishers

REF – Research Excellence Framework

VADS – Visual Arts Database Service (although an internal group their need falls into a more external category)

Mission statement and aims

Mission statement

To make deposit in the institutional repository an intrinsic part of the research process.

Aim

To make the institutional repository the first place stakeholders interested in the research output of the institute look.

Objectives including communication methods and materials

When writing an objective be aware of how it will fit in with the overall plan for the institutional repository and also how this in turn fits with the key objectives of the institute.

Use a variety of communication strategies to include both a ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ approach, and also a blanket and targeted approach. The key to the success of this strategy is that a personal approach is backed up by clear policies and guidance on issues relating to institutional repositories.

Below is a list of methods and materials that could be used but is not limited to:

Communication methods:

  • Training demonstrations and workshops, targeting different stakeholder groups
  • Drop in sessions at lunchtimes at the different sites for different stakeholder groups
  • Publicity – through conferences, newsletters, RO, marketing, web pages
  • One to one meetings
  • Target particular academics and departments
  • E-mails
  • Telephone calls

Materials:

  • Institutional website
  • Home page of institutional website
  • Library and learning pages
  • Articles published in newsletters
  • A4/5 flyers
  • Posters and postcards
  • Use research work already deposited and also quotes from enthusiastic users
  • Training material, manual on how to deposit, this might also include podcasts and ‘or screen casts, copyright guidance on the institutional repository website, but also include in training sessions other useful sites such as JISC legal.

Planning and timing

Deliver on promises and do not over promise.

Phase 0, commencing August 2010 –This is the familiarisation with the institutional repository and then learning e-prints/reviewing/tweaking the system. Also know the policies inside out. Responsibility lies for the above with the institutional repository staff.

Phase 1,commencing September 2010 – This is the main phase for advocacy to raise awareness with management/administrators/researchers, and all internal stakeholders.

Phase 2, commencing about August 2011 – by this time there will be at least 200 or more items in the institutional repository. This will then provide an excellent showcase for potential students and funders of the research output from the institution. At this point advocacy will be rolled out to the external stakeholder group in order to raise the profile of the research output at the institute.

The above phases are presented visually in Appendix A: Example timeline of advocacy for an institutional research repository available from:

Mapping/matching of the information needs to the relevant stakeholders

Academic Services – strategic briefing – priorities: raising our game, financial sustainability, student experience, working together, partnerships and collaboration.

OA = Open Access

Stakeholder / Benefits of OA and self archiving / Perceived problems/concerns / WhichAspects of OA and self-archiving must be conveyed to each group in order for them to understand and participate in the OA arena?
UCA management / Promote IR research outputs across the globe.
Gather material for REF. / Cost/quality of the material/IPR / Find ways to demonstrate value for money.
To be verified by RO.
IPR policies an procedure, including a take-down policy are in place.
1. Research Office and research clusters*
2. Research Centres** / Efficiency and reduction of duplication of effort.
Visibility in research context. / Needs to be built into workflow. / May well be aware of these already.
Faculty Offices / Administrative efficiency / Lack of training / Provide training materials and workshops.
Academics / 1. OA an instant way to publish material.
2. Material verified by RO before being deposited.
3. Trust and confidence in guidance provided.
4. Could lead to collaborations, across sites and in the research community.
5. Collect content in a single location. / 1. Disruption of the traditional publishing model.
2. Understanding of OA
3. IPR/Copyright concerns.
4. Time consuming process to depositing.
5. Who is verifying the quality of their work as research? / 1. Self archiving is a supplementary to the publishing process.
2. and 3. Make sure I am knowledgeable, and compile a list of useful urls and include JISC legal.
4. Demonstrations, workshops for small numbers. Perhaps target a department.
Stakeholder / Benefits of OA and self archiving / Perceived problems/concerns / Which aspects of OA and self-archiving must be conveyed to each group in order for them to understand and participate in the OA arena?
LLS staff / So they can encourage academic staff to deposit. UCA The IR is another resource students can use. / Clarity about how the IR is important to researchers in increasing their visibility outside UCA. / Faculty Librarians already know something about IPR issues. May need to know more about OA. Achieve through meetings and training sessions.
Students
Primarily Postgraduate / Dissemination of their thesis within the home institution, can achieve visibility. / Some reluctance about forfeiting IPR to their work. / Have clear depositing guidelines which include IPR. Work with RO and others involved with postgraduate studies.
IT / The IR needs IT services to provide technical support.
Marketing / The IR needs marketing services to help with outreach and the production of material that conforms to institutional standards.

Overview linking communication methods and materials tostakeholder groups

Stakeholders / Why / How / When / Action
UCA management
‘Top down’ / 1. Power, influence, money, support
2. Should know about OA because of the REF 2014
3. They can disseminate and promote the IR
4. They may have material that could be deposited. / 1. 5 min. presentation at an SMT meeting to highlight current situation, show policies, explain advantages and solicit support. / End of Phase 0 Oct/Nov 2010 / Find out the time and date of the next SMT meeting.
Keep Pro-VC for R&E informed of developments and successes. (This will help in ensuring the IR is embedded within the institution.)
1. Research Office / 1. Consolidate current links
2. First call for researchers / Informal: a demonstration followed by Q & A session / End of Phase 0
Before the end of September 2010 / Contact RO and ask if this would be possible and also the annual timings for the researchers awards.
2. Site Galleries / 1. To find ways in which to collaborate for the benefit of each other.
2. To build up contacts so that items can be deposited. / 1. 1 to 1 meeting. / During September 2010 / 1. Contact those who run the galleries.
Faculty Offices / 1. Train and inform them of the IR so they can act as support for the academics in their area. / 1. Half-day workshops/training sessions. / Phase 1
Sept./Oct. 2010 / Make contact with the faculty offices.
Academics / 1. Train and inform them of the IR so they can deposit items.
2. They can then raise awareness with each other. / Emails, lunchtime drop-in sessions, targeted approach following leads from the RO and Faculty Offices / Ongoing
It is hoped that / Plan events in consultation with RO and Faculty Offices so the timings are appropriate to the academics.
LLS staff / 1. Faculty librarians can promote the IR to their subject schools.
2. Customer Services Teams have a role to play in promoting the IR in an informal way. / Presentations / September 2010 / 1) Contact those who line manage the faculty librarians and the Customer Services Team to arrange a presentation.
Stakeholders / Why / How / When / Action
Students PhD / Want to encourage deposit of PhDs into UCA Research Online. / 1. Mentioned in PhD handbook.
2. A presence at the inductions and open days / Meeting with MO late Aug. 2010 / 1. Contact RO.
2. Contact Learning and Development Services to arrange this.
IT
EPrints at Southampton / Will need IT assistance with visibility of UCA Research Online links.
Needed for possible upgrades and integration of ‘plug-ins’ of additional software. / Collaboration
Outsourcing this work to eprints. / Wait until re-structuring has been completed.
When funding becomes available. / Contact known people in IT, also LW and CS.
Make a business case for funding and investigate costing of eprints services.
Marketing / Publicity to conform to marketing guidelines and standards. / Through awareness and discussion with marketing. / Ongoing / Researching their guidelines and allowing enough time for them to feedback and give advice.

Evaluation of the project

Evaluation of each event should take place to try and gauge response to the event, the feedback will then inform the next similar event.

Evaluation should cover the timing, how the event was publicised, and the take up, and then observation or feedback from the participants.

Questions to consider asking are:

  • What do you read/see/hear?
  • What works/doesn’t work?
  • What information do you need that you are not currently supplied with?
  • How often do you want us to communicate with you?

Methods of evaluation could include interview, surveys, questionnaires and focus groups.

From recent discussion lists it is clear that KPIs (key performance indicators) are likely to become increasingly important in demonstrating the value of IRs to key stakeholders.

Bibliography

Plan created using JISC SURF materials available at (Last accessed: 12-04-2011)

(Last accessed: 12-04-2011)

(Last accessed: 12-04-2011)

(Last accessed: 12-04-2011)

(Last accessed: 12-04-2011)

(Last accessed: 12-04-2011)

(Last accessed: 12-04-2011)

Author's Contact Details

Anne Spalding, Repository and Digitisation Officer, UCA Research Online, University for the Creative Arts

1

Top View