Monday, 9 January 2017

Project MUSE - Academics’ Attitudes toward the Utilization of Institutional Repositories in Nigerian Universities

 Source: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/645350



Academics’ Attitudes toward the Utilization of Institutional Repositories in Nigerian Universities

abstract
This study was carried out to ascertain the attitudes of academics
concerning the utilization of institutional repositories (IRs) in
Nigerian universities. The study took the form of a descriptive survey,
gathering data from the five Nigerian universities with IRs. The result
showed that the universities developed IRs to create a forum for their
research, to collaborate with colleagues, and for long-term
preservation. Academics have positive attitudes toward the utilization
of IRs, and they willingly submit their publications. They believe that
publishing works on institutional repositories will improve
accessibility to scholarly literature and increase the citation impact
of their work. The implication of this study is that academics’ support
of institutional repositories favors the growth of IRs in Nigeria. Their
contributions and observations will have a considerable impact on the
improvement of IRs generally.


Introduction

Institutional repositories (IRs) have gained prominence, both in
developed and developing countries, because they offer a solution to the
management of content in universities. Much of the content produced by
universities is organized using traditional systems peculiar to that
institution alone, which often hinders access and retrieval. An IR, on
the other hand, provides a platform for archiving and managing such
information that enables easy access and use by researchers.


Academics use an IR to access articles and other information
resources for research and learning. An IR can provide scholars with
wider knowledge of the research carried out in their subject area of
interest. Academics download published articles of their colleagues from
institutional repositories, from which they review the literature to
identify new findings or gaps in knowledge. [End Page 17]


Academics also utilize their IRs for archiving published works to
increase their visibility and collaboration with other academics.
Utilization of IRs promotes visibility and provides a global network for
academic scholarship. Michelle Armstrong stated that research
dissemination is a core mission for all universities.1
Libraries provide institutional repository services to support this
goal. However, self-archiving—that is, submission by the authors—is a
better option to ensure sustenance of an IR in terms of content creation
and updates. It is therefore important to study this major group of
contributors to IRs.


Research is vital for both academics and students.2
Academics’ involvement is a major issue in the development of IRs for
research in Nigeria. If scholars fail to contribute, IR content will
lack quality publications. This, in turn, will affect the rate of use.
The willingness of academics to use the IR as a platform to archive
their research output and to collaborate with colleagues is necessary
for the sustainability of IRs.


Different categories of academics perform teaching and research in
the various faculties of the university. Since they may have divergent
views on the use of IRs, it is necessary to ascertain the opinions of
members of the various faculties toward IR utilization. A study of this
subject will give more insight into the extent to which their work is
archived on the IR.


Research Objectives

The objectives of this study were to answer two questions: (1) For
what purposes do academics use institutional repositories in Nigerian
universities? and (2) What is the attitude of academics toward using IRs
for accessing materials and submitting their content for archiving? To
answer these questions, the study tested and attempted to disprove three
null hypotheses:


Hypothesis 1: “There is no significant difference in the mean rating
of the attitude of senior and junior academics toward submitting their
content for archiving in institutional repositories.”


Hypothesis 2: “There is no significant difference in the mean rating
of academics in the faculties of arts, sciences, social sciences, and
medicine and pharmaceutical sciences with respect to their attitude
toward submitting their content for archiving in institutional
repositories.”


Hypothesis 3: “There is no significant difference in the mean rating
among academics in the universities under study with respect to their
attitude toward submitting their content for archiving in institutional
repositories.” [End Page 18]


Purpose of an Institutional Repository

An institutional repository is a platform for archiving research
publications to increase citation and visibility and to preserve
scholarly communications. The relatively recent development of the
institutional repository promises to help ensure long-term preservation
of digital scholarship.3
Juha Hakala stated that preservation of electronic documents means
taking steps to ensure the longevity of these resources; it applies to
both materials that are born digital and those converted from
traditional analog form.4 Hakala further identified refreshing, migration, and emulation as three strategies that can be used for long-time preservation.5
Tyler Walters wrote that librarians who manage institutional
repositories naturally think of how to ingest their researchers’
scholarly content into the repository.6
He further stated that institutional repositories can be a central tool
for organizing and accessing both formal and informal scholarly
communications generated and disseminated in digital format.7
Chinwe Anunobi and Ifeyinwa Okoye highlighted that an institutional
repository is a way of reducing the cost of scholarly publication and
increasing the visibility and access of scholarly research.8
Gideon Christian observed that most academics publish for the purposes
of advancement in their career, to collaborate with peers, and to gain
prestige from their work.9
This implies that an IR could be used for various purposes, such as to
locate current information, publish academic works, or download
resources from the Web, depending on the interest of the researcher.


The rationale for implementing an IR, as suggested by B. K. Vishala
and M. K. Bhandi, is to provide an opportunity for members of the
academic community to post research online, expanding exposure and
access to their works.10
Writing on the objectives of an IR, Stephen Akintunde stated that it
creates global visibility for an institution’s scholarly research,
collects content in a single place, provides for open access to
institutional research output by self-archiving, and stores and
preserves other institutional digital assets.11
Younghee Noh opined that research achievement accounts for 60 percent
of a university’s performance ranking, made up of 40 percent for
academic peer review and 20 percent for citations per faculty member.12 Noh further stated that university libraries account for a significant portion of the academic success of universities.13


Scholarly communication has had tremendous impact on global
recognition of academics and institutions. Authors gain popularity
through their publications, which improves their university’s ranking
and visibility. Nader Ale Ebrahim, Hadi Salehi, Mohamed Amin Embi, Farid
Habibi, Hossein Gholizadeh, and Seyed Mohammad Motahar pointed out that
an important measurement for a scholar’s productivity is the number of
citations to his or her articles.14
Therefore, academics should be encouraged to selfarchive their quality
works to increase citation counts and improve global recognition. David
Shotton and Jason Priem, cited by Ebrahim and his coauthors, stated that
depositing a paper in an institutional repository is a way of
increasing the paper’s visibility.15 [End Page 19]


Due to the pressure on university ranking, most institutions
encourage academics to increase their research output. Felix Ubogu and
Maryna Van den Heever stated that ranking systems have attracted wide
attention from stakeholders, both national and international, who are
interested in the performance of universities.16 An IR is an avenue to improve the visibility and ranking of an institution.


Raym Crow explained that an IR creates an enabling environment for
scholarly publication and increases the global visibility of the
research publications of an institution.17 IRs add to the credibility of a university and play an important role in establishing the university’s identity and values.


Attitude of Academics toward Institutional Repositories

The attitude of academics toward submission of contents to their
institutional repository may be positive or negative depending on the
approach adopted by university management. A positive attitude depends
to a great extent on the understanding and acceptance of academics, as
was analyzed by Fred Davis in his technology acceptance model, a theory
about how users come to accept and employ a technology. According to
Davis, the attitude of a user toward a system is a major determinant of
whether the person will actually use or reject the system. The attitude
of the user, in turn, is influenced by how the user perceives the
system’s helpfulness and ease of use.18


Later authors suggested that the technology acceptance model should
include behavioral intention as a new variable directly influenced by
the perceived usefulness of system. This gave rise to a modified version
of the technology acceptance model, shown in Figure 1.


An institutional repository is the result of technological
developments in information management, preservation, and use. The
attitude of users toward an IR will be influenced by the degree to which
the IR has proved helpful and the ease with which it can be used.
Therefore, if the system—that is, the IR—is too complex, users will
adopt the technology slowly or not at all. Even for academics who are
expected to archive their research publications on an IR, their attitude
depends on how useful the repository has proved to their colleagues. If
using it has increased visibility or enhanced collaboration, it will
motivate others to see archiving on an IR as important. But if the case
is the contrary, it will be difficult to persuade any academic to
archive his or her research output on an IR.


Attitudes of academics, therefore, have a significant effect on
submission of content for archiving on an IR. However, these attitudes
may differ with such variables as discipline, rank, and institutional
policy. Paul Genoni’s [End Page 20] survey of faculty
attitudes, perceptions, and concerns for the perpetuation of traditional
scholarly publishing indicated that faculties consider institutional
repositories to be particularly suited for various types of gray
literature—that is, preprints or prepublication versions, technical
reports, papers, and other unpublished materials.20
Academics may enthusiastically welcome having an IR at first,
especially when they have heard about the benefits from using it, but
their support sometimes cools. The work of Victor Nwokedi revealed that
29.55 percent of faculty members indicated willingness to submit
content, 24.24 percent responded that they were not willing to submit,
and the majority 46.21 percent remained undecided.21
A study at the University of the West Indies in St. Augustine, Trinidad
and Tobago, discovered that 8 percent of the academics from the Faculty
of Engineering were aware of IRs, but none had deposited a research
paper on the university’s IR.22
There may also be differences by discipline. Esoswo Ogbomo discovered
that academics in the faculties of education and arts in several
universities in Nigeria had more positive attitudes toward institutional
repositories than academics in the other faculties.23
The author further stated that though the attitude of faculty members
from education and arts was more positive, academics in the faculties of
science and social science submitted more content to their IR,24
contrary to what one might expect. Another study discovered that no
significant difference existed between different faculties in the
members’ use of information technology.25



Click for larger view

View full resolution
Figure 1.
A modified version of Fred Davis’s technology acceptance model


Ibironke Lawal indicated that academics in the sciences in some
institutions in the United States and Canada have a high rate of
contributing to their IRs.26
Muluken Alemayehu, in a study on researchers’ attitudes toward
institutional repositories, discovered that the researchers believe that
an IR should be freely accessible.27
The status of academics made no difference in their attitude;
regardless of academic status, they all have a positive attitude about
making their research results freely disseminated through the university
IR.


Methodology

The present study took the form of a descriptive survey, gathering
information about the respondents’ perspectives on IRs. The population
for the study consisted of 5 head [End Page 21] librarians and 4,906 academics from Nigerian universities that have institutional repositories. The Directory of Open Access Repository (OpenDOAR),
a worldwide directory of academic open access repositories, shows that
of the 126 universities in the country, 5 have institutional
repositories. Though other universities have started IR projects, they
are not fully online and have not been listed by OpenDOAR.


The five universities with IRs, according to OpenDOAR, are
(1) the University of Jos; (2) Covenant University in Ota; (3) the
University of Nigeria Nsukka; (4) the Federal University of Technology
Akure; and (5) Ahmadu Bello University in Zaria.28
The University of Jos has 950 faculty members, Covenant University has
400, the University of Nigeria Nsukka 1,515, the Federal University of
Technology Akure 635, and Ahmadu Bello University in Zaria 1,405. These
academic staff range in rank from senior (professors, associate
professors, and senior lecturers) to junior (lecturer I, lecturer II,
assistant lecturers, and graduate assistants). The repository librarians
were chosen because they are involved in the management of the
institutional repository.


The researcher sampled 10 percent of the population, using multistage
sampling to arrive at a total number of participants of 491 academics
and 5 repository librarians, or 496 in all. The multistage sampling
procedure was to first sample 10 percent of the total population from
each institution. Subsequently, 10 percent of the academics from each
faculty, such as the Faculty of Arts or the Faculty of Sciences, were
sampled to get a proportionate sample. Rank was taken into consideration
to ensure that the different ranks were covered proportionately.


Questionnaires and interviews were the instruments for data
collection. Of 491 questionnaires distributed to the five universities,
396 were correctly filled out and used for the analysis. The data were
analyzed by calculating the mean for the two research questions.
Hypothesis 1 was examined using the t-test, a statistical
technique employed to indicate whether the difference between averages
reflects a “real” difference rather than a difference that occurred
because of random chance in the sample selection. Hypotheses 2 and 3
were tested using ANOVA (analysis of variance), a method used to
determine whether a significant relation exists between variables.


Results and Discussion of Findings

Answers to research question 1—“For what purposes do academics use
institutional repositories in Nigerian universities?”—are displayed in Figure 2,
which shows the mean responses of the participants on the purpose of
using an IR. The academics indicated that institutional repositories are
used to create a forum to collaborate with colleagues (3.50) and for
long-term preservation (3.37). Other purposes were to provide free
access to research output of a university (3.34); to serve as a platform
for archiving academic works (3.32); to access information for teaching
students (3.32); and to get information on relevant research areas
(3.28).


The findings of this study on the purposes of using an IR agree with
the conclusions of Balasubramani Jeyapragash and K. S. Sivakumaren and
of Stephen Akintunde. These findings differ, however, from those of
Olorunsaye Olubunmi, who determined that an IR is used to get current
information, for self-development, and for coursework.29 The repository librarians explained that their universities established IRs to harvest the [End Page 22]
research and scholarly output of the university community; to promote
the visibility of the institution; and to improve the ranking of the
university. In addition, the repository librarians highlighted that
their IRs are accessed by patrons both within and outside their
university community. The librarians emphasized the impact of their
advocacy program and reiterated that IR development was a modern
approach to delivering library services. Carol Hixson made a similar
point, stressing that capturing this wealth of literature is a unique
service that the library can provide for a university.30



Click for larger view

View full resolution
Figure 2.
Mean responses on the purpose of institutional repositories in Nigerian universities


In answer to research question 2—“What attitude do the academics have
toward the submission of their content for archiving in the
institutional repository?”—Table 1
shows the willingness of academics to submit their publications for
archiving in IR. Academics readily submit their publications to
institutional repositories when the administration requests them to do
so (3.08) and when depositing works in an institutional repository is
acceptable to them (3.08). They believe that publishing works on an
institutional repository will improve accessibility to scholarly
literature more than would publishing in printed journals (3.09), that
the institutional repository will increase the citation impact of their
work (3.05), and that it helps increase the ranking of [End Page 23]



Click for larger view

View full resolution
Table 1.
Attitudes of academics toward submission of content to their institutional repository


[End Page 25]


their university (2.96). The fact that academics
disagree with the negative statements in the null hypotheses shows that
they have a positive attitude toward submission of their publications.
The repository librarians theorized that this positive attitude could
result from the purpose for establishing IRs in these universities or
from advocacy programs carried out by librarians to acquaint staff with
the benefits of IRs. In addition, they reported that academics sometimes
receive awards based on work submitted to the IR.
Table 2 shows the results of a t-test
analysis of the mean difference between senior and junior academics in
their attitudes toward submitting their content for archiving on
institutional repositories. The t-test analysis was used to
examine hypothesis 1: “There is no significant difference in the mean
rating of senior and junior academics and their attitude toward
submitting their content for archiving on the institutional repository.”
The results indicate a significant difference, with the mean ratings of
senior faculty higher than those of junior faculty on their attitude
toward submitting their content. The faculty members were asked how much
they agreed or disagreed with three statements: (1) I don’t want my
work to be made freely available for people to access; (2) Depositing my
work in an institutional repository is acceptable to me; and (3)
Depositing content for archiving helps to increase the ranking of my
university. The cluster t-value of 0.63 with a degree of
freedom (how many values can vary) of 367 and a probability value
(likelihood that the results were caused by chance alone) of 0.53 showed
that there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the mean
response of senior and junior academics on their attitude toward
submitting their content for archiving on institutional repository. Thus
the null hypothesis was not rejected—in other words, it was accepted.


Table 3
shows the ANOVA result of the difference between the mean responses of
respondents in the faculties of arts, sciences, social sciences, and
medicine and pharmaceutical sciences in their attitude toward submitting
their content to their institutional repository. The null hypothesis
designated as hypothesis 2—“There is no significant difference in the
mean rating of attitudes of academics from the faculties of arts,
sciences, social sciences, and medicine and pharmaceutical sciences
toward submitting their content for archiving in institutional
repositories”—was not rejected. In other words, it was accepted. There
was no significant difference between the mean ratings of respondents in
the four faculties in their attitude toward submitting their content
for archiving in their institutional repository.


Table 4 displays the ANOVA result of the difference between the mean
responses of the respondents among the universities on their attitude
toward submitting their content to their institutional repository. Data
analysis obtained an F-ratio, a measure of the size of the effects, of
2.08, with a probability value of 0.08. Since the probability value of
0.08 is greater than the 0.05 set as the level of significance, the null
hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference in the mean
rating among the universities in their attitude toward submitting their
content to their institutional repository was accepted.


The results indicating that academics have a positive attitude toward
submitting their content to their IR aligns with the finding of Esoswo
Ogbomo that academics in the Faculty of Arts and Education have a
positive attitude toward institutional repositories and the similar
conclusion of Muluken Alemayehu.31
The academics’ positive attitude toward IRs indicates that they support
the concept of IRs; any inability or reluctance to submit their content
may result from lack of awareness or from not being convinced of [End Page 26]



Click for larger view

View full resolution
Table 2.
t–test analysis of the difference between senior and junior
academics in their attitude toward submitting content to their
institutional repository


[End Page 28]



Click for larger view

View full resolution
Table 3.
ANOVA (analysis of variance) showing no significant difference among
academics of different faculties in attitude toward submitting content
to their institutional repository


*df (degree of freedom) is a measure of how many values can vary in the calculation.


† F-ratio is a measure of the size of the effects. The larger the
F-ratio, the greater the likelihood that the differences between the
means are due to something other than chance alone.


‡ Significance expresses the probability that the result could have occurred purely by chance; p > 0.05 means not significant.


the benefits of using the IR. Though the study at
the University of Jos sampled academics from natural science, which is
only a small percentage of the studied population, it shows that faculty
at some universities may be more willing than faculty at other
institutions.
The three null hypotheses on attitudes of academics toward submitting
content were accepted. This implies that academics from the different
faculties, ranks, and universities have a positive attitude toward IRs
and are willing to submit their work. This result differs from a study
by Ibironke Lawal, who found that academics in the sciences contribute
at a higher rate to IRs than scholars in other fields.32
On the other hand, Esoswo Ogbomo discovered that academics in the
Faculty of Education and Arts had a more positive attitude than those in
the sciences and social sciences.33 Alemayehu found no significant difference in the attitude of academics based on status.34
Since academics have a positive attitude, it implies that, with
encouragement and motivation from university management, their potential
content submission will be significant. Alemayehu also observed that
rewards and incentives impact researchers’ attitudes toward IRs.35


In a study of this nature, one would have expected different views
and perceptions from academics, considering the different faculties and
ranks studied. On the contrary, all participants demonstrated positive
attitudes, a promising step toward the development and utilization of
IRs in Nigeria. Attitude is an important variable in the development of [End Page 29]
an IR project. As highlighted in the technology acceptance model,
attitude is influenced by the perceived ease of use and usefulness of a
system.36
Therefore, it is important that the university administration sustains
this zeal among academics through encouragement and support in their
research and publications.


Recommendations

The intellectual property rules for the content of an IR should be
specified in the repository policy. The policy should state that the IR
is for preservation, and that staff can archive articles published in
journals that support self-archiving and in open access journals. In
addition, authors can seek permission from publishers to archive their
works on their university IR.


It is important for university management to encourage self-archiving
because it will help to ensure sustainability of the institutional
repository. As the repository librarians reported, the library staff
currently archives many faculty publications. If academics become more
involved in archiving, it will not only lead to an increase in the IR
content but also create more awareness of which journals support
self-archiving.


More campaigns to create awareness and sensitization on the existence
and benefits of IRs in universities should be encouraged. Seminars and
training can keep academics abreast of the management and development
stages of their IR and the roles they should play. Much effort will be
needed for proper management of IRs and to ensure viable IRs in Nigerian
universities, including planning and organization of the content and
making the facilities available for users.


Conclusion

The study looked at the purpose of developing an institutional
repository and the attitude of academics toward the submission of
content on their IRs. The study discovered that IRs were established to
archive research publications, to enhance collaboration, to ensure
visibility, and to increase the ranking of the universities. It was also
discovered that academics have positive attitudes. This means that the
development of IRs in Nigerian universities will thrive if properly
managed. To achieve this, training for academics, librarians, and
repository managers is necessary to equip them with the skills to
organize the content for easy accessibility and retrieval of documents.
At every stage, the university community should be carried along in the
development of the IR project. [End Page 30]


Scholastica C. UkwomaScholastica C. Ukwoma is a senior librarian at the Nnamdi Azikiwe Library, University of Nigeria Nsukka; she may be reached by scholar.ukwoma@unn.edu.ng.



V. W. DikeV. W. Dike is a professor in the Department of Library Science at the University of Nigeria Nsukka; her vwdike@yahoo.com.



Notes

1. Michelle Armstrong, “Institutional Repository Management Models That Support Faculty Research Dissemination,” OCLC Systems & Services 30, 1 (2014): 43–51, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-07-2013-0028.
2. Ebele J. Egwunyenga, “Dystrophies and Associated Crises in Research and Academic Publications in Nigerian Universities,” Anthropologist 10, 4 (2008): 245–50.
3.
Meghan Banach and Yuan Li, “Institutional Repository and Digital
Preservation: Assessing Current Practices at Research Libraries,” D-Lib Magazine 17, 5–6 (2011): 1–11.
4. Juha Hakala, “Long-Term Preservation of Electronic Documents,” accessed on December 1, 2015, ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/cris2000/docs/hakala_fulltext.pdf.
5. Ibid.
6.
Tyler O. Walters, “The New Academic Library—Building Institutional
Repositories to Support Changing Scholarly and Research Processes,”
presentation at ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries)
Thirteenth National Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, March 29–April 1,
2007, http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/national/baltimore/papers/56.pdf.
7. Ibid.
8.
Chinwe V. Anunobi and Ifeyinwa B. Okoye, “The Role of Academic
Libraries in Universal Access to Print and Electronic Resources in the
Developing Countries,” Library Philosophy and Practice (2008), accessed September 23, 2012, http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/mlib/anunobi-okoye.html.
9.
Gideon Emcee Christian, “Issues and Challenges to the Development of
Open Access Institutional Repositories in Academic and Research
Institutions in Nigeria,” SSRN [Social Science Research Network] Electronic Journal (January 5, 2009), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1323387.
10.
B. K. Vishala and M. K. Bhandi, “Building Institutional Repository
(IR): Role of the Library,” presentation at 5th International CALIBER
(Convention on Automation of Libraries and Research Institutions),
Panjab University, Chandigarh, India, February 8–10, 2007, http://ir.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/1944/1438/1/631-640.pdf.
11. Stephen A. Akintunde, “Institutional Repository: The University of Jos Experience,” Nigerian Libraries 43 (2010): 1–19.
12. Younghee Noh, “The Impact of University Library Resources on University Research Achievement Outputs,” Aslib [Association for Information Management] Proceedings 64, 2 (2012): 109–33.
13. Ibid.
14.
Nader Ale Ebrahim, Hadi Salehi, Mohamed Amin Embi, Farid Habibi,
Hossein Gholizadeh, and Seyed Mohammad Motahar, “Visibility and Citation
Impact,”
International Education Studies 7, 4 (2014): 120–25, accessed October 24, 2014, www.ccsenet.org/ies.
15. David Shotton, “Publishing: Open Citations,” Nature 502, 7471 (2013): 295–97, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/502295a; Jason Priem, “Scholarship: Beyond the Paper,” Nature 495, 7441 (2013): 437–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/495437a; cited in Ebrahim, Salehi, Embi, Habibi, Gholizadeh, and Motahar, “Visibility and Citation Impact.”
16. Felix Ubogu and Maryna Van den Heever, “Collaboration on Academic Research Support among Five African Universities,” Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries 2 (2013): 207–19.
17.
Raym Crow, “The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC (Scholarly
Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) Position Paper,” ARL (Association of Research Libraries) 223 (2002): 1–4, http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/papers-guides/the-case-for-institutional-repositories.
18. Fred D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS [Management Information Systems] Quarterly 13, 3 (1989): 319–40. [End Page 31]
19.
Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw, “Extrinsic and
Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22, 14 (1992): 1111–32.
20. Paul Genoni, “Content in Institutional Repositories: A Collection Management Issue,” Library Management 25, 6–7 (2004): 300–306.
21.
V. C. Nwokedi, “Nigerian University Academics and Institutional
Repository: A Case Study of University of Jos, Faculty of Natural
Sciences Lecturers,” Information Technologist 7, 2 (2010): 137–46.
22. Jennifer I. Papin-Ramcharan and Richard A. Dawe, “Open Access Publishing: A Developing Country View,” First Monday 11, 6 (2006), accessed May 19, 2012, http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6/papin/index.html.
23.
Esoswo Francisca Ogbomo, “Awareness and Attitude of Lecturers in
South-South Federal Universities in Nigeria towards the Establishment of
Institutional Repositories,” PhD diss., Nnamdi Azikiwe University,
Awka, Nigeria, 2013.
24. Ibid.
25.
Ismail Sahin, “Detailed Review of [Everett] Rogers’ Diffusion of
Innovations Theory and Educational Technology-Related Studies Based on
Rogers’ Theory,” Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 5, 2 (2006): 14–23.
26.
Ibironke Lawal, “Scholarly Communication: The Use and Non-Use of
E-Print Archives for the Dissemination of Scientific Information,” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 36 (2002), accessed May 19, 2012, http://www.istl.org/02-fall/article3.html.
27.
Muluken Wubayehu Alemayehu, “Researchers’ Attitude to Using
Institutional Repositories: A Case Study of the Oslo University
Institutional Repository (DUO),” master’s thesis, Oslo University,
Norway, 2010, ODA Open Digital Archive, accessed May 24, 2013, https://oda.hio.no/jspui/bitstream/10642/426/2/Alemayehu_MulukenWubayehu.pdf.
28. OpenDOAR: Directory of Open Access Repositories, accessed February 18, 2013, http://www.opendoar.org/about.html.
29.
Balasubramani Jeyapragash and K. S. Sivakumaren, “Building an
Institutional Repository in Libraries as a Means to Users Expectations,”
presentation at National Seminar on Library Users’ Expectations in ICT
(Information and Communications Technology) Environment, Madras
Institute of Technology, Chennai, India, September 7–8, 2007; Akintunde,
“Institutional Repository”; O. J. Olubunmi, “Utilization of Web-Based
Resources for Medical Research and Education by Health Professionals at
the College of Medicine, Ibadan, Nigeria,” Samaru Journal of Information Studies 8, 2 (2008).
30. Carol G. Hixson, “First We Build Them, Then What? The Future of Institutional Repositories,” BiD (Biblioteconomia i DocumentaciĆ³ [library and information science]), 15 (2005), accessed May 24, 2013, http://bid.ub.edu/15hixso2.htm.
31.
Ogbomo, “Awareness and Attitude of Lecturers in South-South Federal
Universities in Nigeria”; Alemayehu, “Researchers’ Attitude to Using
Institutional Repositories.”
32. Lawal, “Scholarly Communication.”
33. Ogbomo, “Awareness and Attitude of Lecturers in South-South Federal Universities in Nigeria.”
34. Alemayehu, “Researchers’ Attitude to Using Institutional Repositories.”
35. Ibid.
36. Richard P. Bagozzi, and Warshaw, “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace,” 985. [End Page 32]


Project MUSE - Academics’ Attitudes toward the Utilization of Institutional Repositories in Nigerian Universities

1 comment:

  1. Easily Boost Your ClickBank Commissions And Traffic

    Bannerizer makes it easy for you to promote ClickBank products with banners, simply visit Bannerizer, and get the banner codes for your picked ClickBank products or use the Universal ClickBank Banner Rotator Tool to promote all of the available ClickBank products.

    ReplyDelete