| Summary: | Open access institutional repositories (OA IRs) are electronic systems that capture, preserve, and provide access to the scholarly digital work of an institution. As a new channel of scholarly communications IRs offer faculty a new way to disseminate their work to a wider audience, which in turn can increase the visibility to their work and impact factors, and at the same time increase institutions prestige and value. However, despite the increased popularity of IRs in numbers, research shows that IRs remain thinly populated in large part due to faculty reluctance to participate. There have been studies on the topic of open access repositories with the focus on external factors (social or technological context) that affect faculty attitudes towards participation in IRs, and there is a lack of understanding of the internal factors and the psychology of the reluctance. The goal of this mix method study was to identify the overall factors that affect faculty attitudes towards participation in IRs and examine the extent to which these factors influenced faculty willingness to participate in IRs. First, from literature review and the Model of Factors Affecting Faculty Self-Archiving this study identified eleven factors that influenced faculty members' intention to participate in OA repositories. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) postulated that faculty intention to participate in IR was determined by three categories of factors: five attitudinal, four external (social) and two individual factors. Within the framework of the TPB this study (1) confirmed the measurement scale for each factor using principal component analysis, (2) it examined the influence that each factor had on the faculty likelihood to participate in IR using logistic regression, and (3) it weighted the relative importance of each factor on faculty intent to participate, utilizing relative weight analysis. Quantitative analysis revealed that four out of 11 factors proved to be statistically significant in faculty members' intention to participate in IRs; difficulty with the submission process, discoverability access and readership, altruism, and faculty perception of IRs as low-quality publishing venues. While qualitative analysis revealed that more than half of the faculty remain unfamiliar with OA and its goals, and while they supported the principles of OA, they also had a myriad of concerns regarding participation in IRs.
|
|---|
