Rethinking Theoretical Assumptions of the Discourses of the Institutional Repository Innovation Discipline

Utulu, Samuel C. Avemaria and Ngwenyama, Ojelanki Rethinking Theoretical Assumptions of the Discourses of the Institutional Repository Innovation Discipline., 2017 . In African Conference for Information Systems and Technology, Cape Town, July 11, 2017 to July 18, 2017. (Submitted) [Conference paper]

Paper UCT Conference Final.pdf

Download (340kB) | Preview

English abstract

In this paper we evaluate the theoretical assumptions of the discourses of the institutional repository (IR) innovation discipline. We argue that current theoretical assumptions of the discipline are limiting. We then propose that a new theoretical assumption that sees IR stakeholders as rational social actors is likely to aid the emergence of new insights in the IR discipline. To achieve our aim, we adopted insights in the institutional theory, social shaping of technology theory and stakeholders theory. We used insights in these three theories to propose a new theoretical assumption for the IR innovation discipline. The proposed theoretical assumption is vital because it explicates the importance of identifying IR stakeholders and how their everyday life realities lead to the construction of institutions which inform their concepts of IR and assumptions about how it should be innovated. We conclude that the theoretical assumption that evolved in this study is helpful to the IR community in two ways. First it provides the community with new constructs and concepts that are useful for empirical studies on IR innovation. Second, it facilitates the development of a model that explains how to overcome practical IR innovation barriers. From a wider perspective, our study supports socio-technical oriented approaches to investigating and implementing IR innovation.

Item type: Conference paper
Keywords: Institutional Repository, Institutional Repository Innovation, Social Shaping of Technology, Institutional Repository Stakeholders
Subjects: A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information.
A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AC. Relationship of LIS with other fields .
B. Information use and sociology of information > BG. Information dissemination and diffusion.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HS. Repositories.
Depositing user: Mr Samuel C. Avemaria Utulu
Date deposited: 07 Aug 2018 10:08
Last modified: 07 Aug 2018 10:08


Allard, S., Mack, T. R., & Feltner-Reichert, M. (2005). The librarian's role in institutional repositories: a content analysis of the literature. Reference Services Review, 33(3), pp.: 325-336.

Antleman, (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact?. College & research Libraries, 65, 372-382.

Armbruster, C., & Romary, L. (2009). Comparing repository types: challenges and barriers for subject-based repositories, research repositories, national repository systems and institutional repositories in serving scholarly communication. Research Repositories, National Repository Systems and Institutional Repositories in Serving Scholarly Communication (November 23).

Ballejos, L. & Montagna, J. (2008). Method of stakeholder identification in interorganizational environments. Requirements Engineering, 13, pp.: 281-297.

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday Anchor.

Broody, T. and Harnad, S. (2005). Keynote Lecture: providing open access to peer-reviewed articles to maximize and measure their research impact. Available at: Accessed on 25 December, 2013

Burns, C. Lana, A. and Budd, J. (2013). Institutional repository: exploration of costs and benefits. D-Lib Magazine, 19(1/2).

Chan, L. Kirsop, B. and Arunachalam, S. (2005). Open access archiving: the fast track to building research capacity in developing countries. Science and Development Network, Available at: Accessed on: August 11, 2013.

Ciborra, C. and Lanzara, G. (1994). Formative contexts and information technology: understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations. Accounting, Management & Information Technology, 4(2), p.: 61-86.

Copeland, S. (2011). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. In Digitisation Perspectives, R. Rikowski (Ed.), (pp. 103-113). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011.

Crawford, B. (2003). Open access publishing: where is the value? Lancet, vol. 362, November 8, 1578-1580.

Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper. Washington DC: The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, Available at: Accessed on December 15, 2013.

Damian, D. (2007). Stakeholders in global requirements engineering: Lessons learned from practice. Software, IEEE, 24, 21-27.

Davis, P. & Connolly, M. (2007). Institutional repositories: evaluating the reasons for non-use of Cornell University's installation of DSpace. D-lib Magazine, 13.

Donaldson T. and Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, vol. 20, 65-91, 1995.

Effah, J. & Abbeyquaue, G. (2013). Social construction of open source application for student records: the case of Cape Coast University. International Conference on ICT for Africa 2013, February 20-23, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Ferreira, M., Rodrigues, E., Baptista, A. and Saraiva, R. (2008). Carrots and sticks: Some ideas on how to create a successful institutional repository. D-Lib Magazine, vol. 14, 2008.

Foster N. and Gibbons, S. (2005). Understanding faculty to improve content recruitment for institutional repositories, D-Lib Magazine, 11.

Fox, E., McMillan, G. & Srinivasan, V. (2009). Electronic Theses and Dissertations: Progress, Issues, and Prospects. Putting Knowledge to Work and Letting Information Play: The Center for Digital Discourse and Culture, p. 126.

Frooman, J. (1999) Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 191-205.

Fuenfschilling, L. & Truffer, B. (2014). The structuration of socio-technical regimes-conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Research Policy, 43, 772-791.

Genoni, P. (2004). Content in institutional repositories: a collection management issue. Library Management, 25, 300-306, 2004.

Hanard, S. 2001. The self-archiving initiative. Nature, 410, pp 1024-1025.

Harnad S. and Broody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-lib Magazine, vol. 10(6).

Harnad, S. (2003). ‘Eprints: electronic preprints and postprints.' Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. New York: Marcel Decker.

Houghton, J. Rasmussen, B. Sheehan, P. Oppenheim, C. Morris, A. Creaser, C. Greenwood, H. Summers, M. and Gourlay, A. (2009). Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefits. Being a report to the Joint Information Systems Committee. Available at: Accessed on August 11, 2013.

Houghton, J., Henty, M. & Steel, C. (2003). OAI compliant institutional repositories and the role of library staff. Library Management, 25(4/5), pp.: 170-176.

Howcroft, D. & Light, B. (2010). The social shaping of packaged software. Journal of the Association for Information Science, 11(3), pp.: 122-148.

Howcroft, D., Mitev, N. & Wilson, M. (2004). What we may learn from social shaping of technology approach. In: Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems (J. Mingers, & L. Willcocks, Eds.), London: John & Wiley Publishers.

Johnson, R. (2002). Institutional repository: partnering with faculty to enhance scholarly communication, D-Lib Magazine, 8.

Jones, R. E., Andrew, T., & MacColl, J. (2006). The institutional repository. London: Elsevier.

Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of management review, 20, 404-437.

Khoo, M. (2005). Tacit user and developer frames in user-led collection development: the case of the digital water education library. Paper delivered at Joint Committee on Digital Library Conference, June 7-11, Denver, Colorado.

Kim, J. (2010). Faculty self-archiving: motivation and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 16(9), pp.: 1902-1922.

Kim, J. (2007). Motivating and impeding factors affecting faculty contribution to institutional repositories. Journal of Digital Information, 8(2).

Lamb, R. & Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), pp.: 197-235.

Lee-Hwa, T., Abrizah, A. and Noorhidawati, A. (2013). Availability and visibility of open access digital repositories in ASEAN countries. Information Development, 29(3), pp.: 274-285.

Lynch, C. (2003). Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3, 327-336.

Ma, J., Wang, Y., Zhu, W. and Tang, R. (2009). An attempt of data exchange between institutional repository and the information environment for the management of scientific research-ARP. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 33, pp. 1-7.

Maness, J. Miaskiewicz, T. and Summer, T. (2008). Using personas to understand the needs and goals of institutional repository users. D-Lib Magazine, 14(9), pp.: 10.

Mitchell, R., Agle, B. and Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.

Norris, M., Oppenheim C. and Rowland, F. (2008). Open Access Citation Rates and Developing Countries. In ELPUB, 335-342.

Orlikowski, W. & Gash, D. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technologies in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), pp.: 174-207.

Palmer, C., Teffeau, L. and Newton, M. (2008). Strategies for institutional repository development: a case of three evolving initiatives. Library Trends, 57(2), pp.: 142-167.

Pan, G. (2005). Information systems projects abandonment: a stakeholder analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 25, pp.: 174-184.

Pinfield, S. (2015). Making open access work: the ‘state of the art’ in providing open access to scholarly literature. Online Information Review, 39(5), pp.: 604-636.

Pouloudi, A. (1999). Aspects of the Stakeholder Concept and their Implications for Information Systems Development. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (1991). Introduction. In: The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. W. Powell and P. DiMaggio (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Royster, P. (2008). Publishing original content in an institutional repository. Serial Review, 34(1), pp.: 27-30.

Sahay, S. & Mukherjee, A. (2015). Capacity strengthening in a development context: institutional challenges and approaches. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, Negombo, Sri Lanka, May.

Sale, A. (2005). The impact of mandatory policies on ETD acquisition. Available at: Accessed on August 10, 2014

Schutz, A. and Luckmann, T. (1989). The structures of lifeworld, Vol. 2. Trans. R. Zaner and D. Parent Jr. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Seonghee, K., & Boryung, J. (2008). An analysis of faculty perceptions: Attitudes toward knowledge sharing and collaboration in an academic institution. Library & Information Science Research, 30(4), pp.: 282-290.

Sharp, H., Finkelstein, A. and Galal, G. (1999). Stakeholder identification in the requirements engineering process. In Database and Expert Systems Applications, 1999. Proceedings. Tenth International Workshop on (pp. 387-391). IEEE.

Shearer, K. 2013. “Institutional repositories: towards the identification of critical success factors.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS.

Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, pp.: 99-118.

Sompel, H., Payette, S., Erickson, J., Lagoze C. and Warner, S. (2004). Rethinking scholarly communication. D-Lib Magazine, 10(9).

Suleman H. and Fox, E. (2002). Organizational context and information systems success: a contingency approach). Towards universal accessibility of ETDs: building the NDLTD union archive. In Fifth International Symposium on Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD2002), Provo, Utah, USA, Vol. 30.

Tolbert, P, and Zucker, L. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In: S. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp.: 175-190), London: Sage.

Tonta, Y. (2008). Open access and institutional repositories: the Turkish landscape. Turkish Libraries in Transition: New Opportunities and Challenges, pp.: 27-47.

Tsakonas, G.. and Papatheodorou, C. (2008). Exploring usefulness and usability in the evaluation of open access digital libraries. Information Processing and Management, 44(3), pp.: 1234-1250.

Utulu S. and Akadri, A. (2014). A case of Redeemer's University's Adoption of Institutional Repository Using the Principle of Electronic Information Management Systems. In: Cases on Electronic Records and Resource Management: Implications in Diverse Environments, Janice Krueger (Ed.), (in press), Hershey: IGI, 2014.

Utulu, S. & Bolarinwa, O. (2008). Open access initiative adoption by Nigerian academics, Library Review, 58, 660-669, 2008.

van Westrienen, G. and Lynch, C. (2005). Academic institutional repositories. D-lib Magazine, vol. 11, pp. 1082-9873. 2005.

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-qualitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly,

Westell, M. (2006). Institutional repositories: proposed indicators of success. Library Hi Tech, 24, pp. 211-226.

Wood, M. (2011). Discovery tools and local metadata requirements in academic libraries. SLIS Student Research Journal, vol. 1, Retrieved from: On December 20, 2013.

Wyk, B. and Mostert, J. (2011). Toward enhanced access to Africa's research and local contents: a case study of the institutional depository project, University of Zululand, South Africa. African Journal of Library, Archives, and Information Science, 21, 133-144.

Zhao, S. (2004). Consociated contemporaries as an emergent realm of the lifeworld: extending Schutz's phenomenological analysis to cyberspace. Human Studies, 27, pp.: 91-105.

Zhao, S. (2006). The Internet and the transformation of the reality of everyday life: towards a new analytic stance in sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 76(4), pp.: 458-474.

Zilber, T. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: the case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Review,45(1), pp.: 234-254.


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item