Institutional repositories as portents of change: Disruption or reassembly? Conjectures and reconfigurations

Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting

Volumn 45, Issue , 2008, Pages

  Kennan, Mary Anne ^a   Cole, Fletcher T H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 71949114904     PISSN: 15508390     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/meet.2008.1450450252     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (45)

1. Bachrach, S. M. (2001). Scientific Journals of the Future. In The Transition from Paper: Where Are We Going and How Will We Get There? In R. S. Berry and A. S. Moffat (Eds.). Boston, American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
2. Bailey, C. W. (2008). Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography (SEPB) Available at: http://www.digital-scholarship.org/sepb/sepb.html
3. Bower, J. L. and Christensen, C.M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43-53.
4. Budapest Open Access Initiative. (n.d.). Read the Initiative. Retrieved 7 April, 2006, from http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml.
5. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? J. Law (Ed.). London, Routledge, 196-233.
6. Christensen, C. M. (2006). The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23: 39-55.
7. Christensen, C. M. and Raynor, M. E. (2003). The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
8. Crow, R. (2002). The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper. Washington, City The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition, from http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/ir.html.
9. Drott, M. C. (2006). Open Access. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 40, 79-109.
10. EPrints (undated) Self-Archiving FAQ retrieved 6 May 2008 from http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#17.Publishers
11. Goodman, D. (2004). The criteria for open access (preprint). Serials Review 30 (4), http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00003542/02/SR30-4-Goodman. pdf
12. Harnad, S. (2006). Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How? Retrieved 28 April 2008, from http://openaccess.eprints. org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
13. Holmstrom, J. and Robey, D. (2005). Understanding IT's organizational consequences: An actor network theory approach. In Actor-Network Theory and Organizing. Czarniawska, B. and Hernes, T. (Eds.) Actor-Network Theory and Organizing. Stockholm: Liber, 165-187.
14. Howcroft, D., Mitev, N and Wilson, M. (2004). What we may learn from the social shaping of technology approach. In Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems. J. Mingers and L. Willocks (Eds.). West Sussex, UK, John Wiley & Sons.
15. Johnson, R. (2004). The Future of Scholarly Communication in the Humanities: Adaptation or Transformation? Washington D.C., SPARC Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition. Retrieved 12 January, 2008, from http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/papers.html.
16. Kennan, M. A. and Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2007) Reassembling Scholarly Publishing: Institutional Repositories, Open Access, and the Process of Change. Australian Conference on Information Systems: The 3 Rs: Research, Relevance and Rigour - Coming of Age, December 5-7, 2007 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1030964
17. Kling, R. and Callahan, E. (2003). Electronic journals, the Internet and scholarly communication. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) 37, 127-178.
18. Kling, R. and McKim, G. (1999). Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(10): 890-907.
19. Lafferty, S. and Edwards, J. (2004). Disruptive technologies: What future universities and their libraries? Library Management 25(6/7), 252-258.
20. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
21. Latour, B. (1999). On Recalling ANT. In Actor Network Theory and After. J. Law and J. Hassard (Eds.). Oxford, Blackwell Publishers & The Sociological Review, 15-25.
22. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
23. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.
24. Law, J. (1992, updated 2001). Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity. Lancaster, England, Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Retrieved 11 July 2006, from http://web.archive.org/web/20040214135427/http%3A//www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ sociology/soc054jl.html
25. Law, J. (2003). Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity. Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England Retrieved 11 July 2006, from http://www.lancs.ac. uk/fss/sociology/papers/law-notes-on-ant.pdf.
26. Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London, Routledge.
27. Lewis, D. W. (2004). The innovator's dilemma: Disruptive change and academic libraries. Library Administration & Management 18(2): 68-74.
28. Look, H. (2004). Open access: Look both ways before crossing. Serials, 17(3), 217-223.
29. Madison, M. (2006). The idea of the law review: Scholarship, prestige and open access. Lewis & Clark Law Review 10(4): 901-924. Retrieved 14 January, 2008 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=899122.
30. Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 19-25.
31. McDowell, C. S. (2007). Evaluating institutional repository deployment in American academe since early 2005: repositories by the numbers, Part 2. D-Lib Magazine, 13(9/10), 1082-9873.
32. McGrath, K. (2002). The Golden Circle: a way of arguing and acting about technology in the London Ambulance Service. European Journal of Information Systems, 11, 251-266.
33. McKiernan, G. (2002). E Is for everything: the extra-ordinary, evolutionary [e-] journal. The Serials Librarian 41(3/4), 293-321.
34. National Research Council. (U.S.). Panel on the Impact of Information Technology on the Future of the Research University, (2002). Preparing for the revolution: information technology and the future of the research university. National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
35. Nguyen, T. (2008). Open doors and open minds: What faculty authors can do to ensure open access to their work through their institutions: A SPARC / SCIENCE COMMONS WHITE PAPER. Cambridge MA: SPARC/SCIENCE COMMONS.
36. Oppenheim, C. (2005). Publish OA if you can - self archive either way. American Scientist Open Access Forum Retrieved 18/10/05, from http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A1=ind05&L=american-scientist-open- access-forum&F=l#219.
37. Poynder, R. (2004). No gain without pain. Information Today, 21(10), 1-5.
38. Rowlands, I. and Nicholas, D. (2006). The changing scholarly communication landscape: An international survey of senior researchers. Learned Publishing, 19(1), 31-55.
39. Suber, P. (2007). Timeline of the Open Access Movement (Last revised, December 10, 2007). Retrieved 28 April, 2008, from http://www.earlham.edu/ ~peters/fos/timeline.htm
40. Tatnall, A. and Gilding, A. (1999). Actor-Network Theory and information systems research. 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Wellington, New Zealand, Victoria University of Wellington Retrieved 11 July, 2006, from http://www2.vuw.ac.nz/acis99/Papers/PaperTatnall-069.pdf.
41. Thomas, C., & McDonald, R. H. (2007). Measuring and comparing participation patterns in digital repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 13(9/10), 1082-9873.
42. Underwood, J. (1998). Not another methodology: What ANT tells us about systems development. 6th International Conference on Information Systems Methodologies, Salford, UK, British Computer Society. Retrieved 19 July, 2006 from, http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~jim/publications/Salford99.doc.
43. Underwood, J. (2001a). Meaning in IS Development: Understanding System Requirements and Use with Actor-Network Theory. PhD Thesis. Department of Information Systems. Wollongong, University of Wollongong.
44. Underwood, J. (2001b). Negotiating the chasm in system development: some advice from ANT. Twelfth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Coffs Harbour 19 July, 2006, http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~jim/publications/ ACIS2001underwood.doc.
45. Van Orsdel, L. C., & Born, K. (14 April 2008). Periodicals Price Survey 2008: Embracing openness, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/ CA6547086.html