Stevan, and all,
>>> SH: (2) Because it is harder for an institution to manage, monitor,
>>> archive and harvest wildcat websites than IRs.
>>
>> Absolutely. Such websites are a copyright nightmare.
>
> Absolutely *not* because of copyright! (That's *your* self-inflicted
> nightmare, Talat. I wish I could help you, but the ailment is
> iatrogenic, or I should say dikikogorogenic!). Because it is harder
for an
> institution to manage, monitor, archive and harvest wildcat websites
> than IRs.
No, Stevan, not my "self-inflicted nightmare", it's my job to take a
concern in the copyright liabilities that academics may inflict upon my
institution. Fortunately for me it's my colleague's job, not mine, to
make certain such content is not published in breach of the copyright
holder's legal property rights in the material - it only becomes my
affair when this strictly relates to our IR. You prefer [us] to stick
your [our?] head[s] in the sand, it seems, but it is nobody's business
except those who would have a legal liability, certainly not yours.
No sensible repository manager should accept Stevan's point here. These
are real property rights and real liabilities, which we can't ignore
simply because we think the owner doesn't stand a chance of enforcing
their rights, which is an entirely unprofessional approach that will at
some point backfire unpleasantly, even if it doesn't in 95% of cases.
> Those are intuitions. The evidence is the opposite: Invitations with
> encouragement fail, mandates and incentives succeed.
You ignore my point, which was perhaps expressed too subtly: indeed I
agreed that mandates succeed, but those that are brought about in
consultation with academics, i.e. where they are represented in
discussions to bring them about, are much easier to implement and
enforce than those where management imposes them without discussion. I
don't think that any of your quoted studies have analysed that much more
subtle point, so my practical experience wins here. I would add
inclusiveness to your list of successful methods, since it underpins any
others and is arguably the greatest incentive.
It is altogether too easy to dismiss hard-won practical experience as
"intuitions", and indeed reckless.
> As Alma Swan's surveys showed, researchers don't oppose mandates per
se
> either: over 80% say they would comply willingly -- and Arthur Sale's
> studies confirm that that they actually do what they say, once
mandated.
I entirely believe that most researchers do what they are told, per
Arthur sale. I have however met a sizeable minority of academics who do
indeed oppose mandates, so I can only assume that their like was
unrepresented in Alma's survey. I am not talking about one or two
mavericks here but at least one or two in nearly every academic
department. No "intuitions".
Forgive me for having tried to agree with you yesterday! Given the
responses I had, perhaps I should not have tried. To be honest, I am
quite confident that colleagues reading this will immediately recognise
my practical experiences.
Best wishes,
Talat
|