Summit Research Repository (Simon Fraser University)

Hosford, Kate

English

Designing age-friendly communities: A mixed methods investigation into built environments that support older adults\u27 access to transportation

Park, So Yoon

Comparative studies of white-collar crime in Korea and Canada especially regarding MOVC (Multiple Ordinary Victims Crime)

Moore, Alison J.

Zerkee, Jennifer

465
CHAPTER 3.3
Case Studies
SECTION 3.3.1
So You Have an Open Access 
Policy—Now What?
EVALUATING SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY’S OPEN ACCESS 
POLICY
Alison Moore and Jennifer Zerkee
The SFU Context
Simon Fraser University (SFU) is a comprehensive, doctoral-granting university in Burnaby, 
BC, Canada, with 23,000 FTE students. Simon Fraser University Library employs approxi-
mately thirty-five librarians in non-administrative, public service roles. Librarians are orga-
nized in divisions across three campus libraries and include subject specialists as well as 
functional specialists dedicated to activities such as data services, scholarly communication, 
the makerspace, and digital humanities.
The SFU Open Access Policy
In January 2017, following sixteen months of campus-wide consultation, SFU Senate endorsed 
the SFU Open Access Policy (OA Policy). The OA Policy acknowledges the commitment 
of faculty, students, and postdoctoral fellows to sharing the products of their research with 
the broadest possible audience, including other scholars, practitioners, policy-makers, and 
the public at large.1 The OA Policy calls upon SFU researchers to deposit their authored and 
co-authored scholarly articles in Summit, SFU’s institutional research repository.
In late 2019, we were asked to conduct a three-year review of the OA Policy, with the 
intention of producing a three-page report. While we had both worked with open access 
466 Section 3.3.1
initiatives and resources in the library for some time (including between us our institu-
tional repository Summit, the SFU Open Access Fund, and copyright and digital scholarship 
support), neither of us was involved in the development or implementation of the OA Policy 
in 2017. We worked on this review in collaboration with our associate dean of libraries, 
collections, and scholarly communication.
Our Policy Review Process
When we were asked to review the policy, we thought we knew what that meant—but in 
hindsight we could have asked for more guidance on the expectations for this process. For 
example, was this a general update on the progress and outcomes of the policy, or were we 
expected to make recommendations of some kind? And if recommendations were expected, 
did that include the possibility of large-scale overhauls or even reconsideration of the policy 
itself, or just smaller suggestions such as changes to workflow or outreach activities?
We determined that this review was intended to be more reflective than evaluative, so 
we began from a position that took for granted that working toward openness is a valuable 
endeavor. This led us to adopt a SOAR approach, which considers the strengths, opportunities, 
aspirations, and results of an initiative. This approach is grounded in appreciative inquiry, a 
framework that “begins by identifying what is positive” in an organization.2 SOAR is designed 
to be a “constructive and optimistic” framework, as opposed to the “negative and competitive” 
SWOT analysis.3 To this end we reflected not only on the policy itself but also on supports 
such as our institutional repository Summit and our Open Access Fund (OA Fund), as well 
as the outreach and education that we do around open access generally. This approach helped 
us to identify a broader variety of strengths and successes than data specific to the OA Policy 
alone would have. For example, we consider it a key strength that open access–related support 
happens across library divisions and involves numerous librarians and staff members in areas 
including not only scholarly communication but also copyright, collections, data services, 
Summit, the Public Knowledge Project,* and liaisons to both academic departments and 
external communities.
We looked beyond SFU in order to situate our participation in open access more broadly: 
within Canada first, because SFU was one of the first of a small but growing number of Cana-
dian institutions with an institution-wide open access policy,† and then of course within the 
international open access landscape.
We reviewed the communications and outreach activities that took place around the 
policy’s implementation in 2017 and since and looked at responses to feedback mechanisms 
put in place in 2017. Hearing from our community and incorporating such qualitative data 
in our review was extremely important to us, so we also actively sought comments from SFU 
researchers about the policy and related supports and initiatives.
Because the OA Policy did not have an implementation plan or specific goals developed 
at implementation, we had to think about the best ways to assess its successes: How could we 
measure uptake of the policy without the capacity for a large-scale survey or interviews with 
researchers? We determined that using our OA Fund and repository deposit statistics as proxy 
measures would provide the closest related data points. We looked at the number of articles 
* The Public Knowledge Project, https://pkp.sfu.ca/, supported by SFU, is a collaborative project across multi-
ple universities which develops free open-source software for open publishing, including Open Journal Systems 
(OJS) and Open Monograph Press (OMP).
† As of May 6, 2020, the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI), https://sparcopen.org/coapi/
members/, lists only four Canadian institutions as full members.
So You Have an Open Access Policy—Now What 467
funded by the OA Fund from one year before the policy was implemented through the most 
recent year and the number of articles and book chapters deposited to Summit for the same 
period. While these proxies are not perfect substitutes for data about compliance with (or 
awareness of) the policy itself, substantial increases in the use of both services satisfied us 
that, at the very least, general awareness of and engagement with open at SFU has increased 
in tandem with outreach efforts related to the policy.
Our resulting report went to the dean of libraries for review and then was presented 
at a meeting of the university’s Senate Library Council, where we addressed questions and 
collected feedback from faculty representatives. Following this faculty input, we finalized the 
report, and it was presented to SFU Senate. The final report is now available on the library’s 
website and SFU’s institutional repository Summit.4
Take-Aways and Tips
Here are some things we wish we had determined before embarking upon our policy review 
and the take-aways we recommend for others engaging in a similar review:
• Understand your role in the policy review. Where do you have the opportunity to make 
decisions? When do you need to go to someone else (such as administrators) for deci-
sions? Can you ask colleagues for support (e.g., assistance with retrieving statistics)?
• Find out who the key stakeholders are. Are they all located in the library, or across 
campus departments and offices? Will they be consulted in some way, asked for feed-
back, or just presented with the final report? Who will need to see the report and at 
what stages? Who will need to sign off on it before it is finalized?
• Determine the purpose and expected outcomes of the policy review. Are recommenda-
tions expected? Is the policy itself open for reconsideration? The outcomes may be up 
to you (e.g., if you are at a smaller institution) or may come from administrators or 
other stakeholders.
 – Was there an implementation plan? Can this guide the review?
 – Are there different expectations at different organizational levels (e.g., internal 
recommendations for the library separate from the public-facing report)?
• Consider whether an existing framework would be useful (e.g., SOAR, SWOT). Is there 
one that suits the goals of your review?
• Determine what data is relevant and useful.
 – Consider both the short term in the context of your review and the longer term to 
inform future initiatives related to the policy.
 – Consider quantitative as well as qualitative types of data.
 – If you collect or capture researcher testimonials, request permission to quote them 
in promotion, publication, and other potential additional uses.
• Survey the landscape to situate the policy within the institution, the scholarly landscape, 
and the broader community.
Addressing these questions will provide an outline to guide the policy review. These 
answers will also help to keep momentum going around promotion of the policy and related 
services and provide measures for assessment to identify successes and gaps going forward. 
This outline and the resulting review will provide continuity for staff assessing or updating 
the policy in the future and can provide evidence for increasing support or developing related 
services.
468
Discussion Questions
1. What factors might influence a decision to use a framework and selection of an appro-
priate framework to guide a policy review?
2. What kinds of evidence (both quantitative and qualitative) might inform a policy 
review? How could these be planned for and collected in a proactive way?
3. Who might the stakeholders be for a similar policy review at a small, medium, or large 
institution? Who or what could help you determine who they are?
Notes
1. Simon Fraser University Library, “SFU Open Access Policy,” last modified October 2019, https://www.lib.
sfu.ca/help/publish/scholarly-publishing/open-access/open-access-policy (requires SFU login).
2. David Cooperrider, Diana D. Whitney, and Jacqueline M. Stavros, Appreciative Inquiry Handbook, 2nd ed. 
(Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing, Inc., 2008), xv.
3. Jill Zarestky and Catherine S. Cole, “Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Results: An Emerging 
Approach to Organization Development,” New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Develop-
ment 29, no. 1 (2017): 6, https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20166.
4. Patty Gallilee, Ali Moore, and Jennifer Zerkee, Report on the SFU Open Access Policy (Burnaby, BC: SFU 
Library, 2020), http://summit.sfu.ca/item/20041.
Bibliography
Cooperrider, David, Diana D. Whitney, and Jacqueline M. Stavros. The Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: For 
Leaders of Change, 2nd ed. Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing, Inc., 2008.
Gallilee, Patty, Ali Moore, and Jennifer Zerkee. Report on the SFU Open Access Policy. Burnaby, BC: Simon 
Fraser University Library, 2020. https://summit.sfu.ca/item/20041.
Simon Fraser University Library. “SFU Open Access Policy.” Last modified October 2019. https://www.lib.sfu.
ca/help/publish/scholarly-publishing/open-access/open-access-policy (requires SFU login).
Zarestky, Jill, and Catherine S. Cole. “Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Results: An Emerging 
Approach to Organization Development.” New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Develop-
ment 29, no. 1 (2017): 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20166.
Section 3.3.1


So you have an open access policy - now what? Evaluating Simon Fraser University\u27s open access policy

Enns, Camilla

Parent stories of HIPPY: The role of a school readiness program for newcomer families in supporting parent-child relationships

Lee, Kelsey

Identifying sources of polychlorinated biphenyls to the Southern Resident killer whales within the Salish Sea using passive sampling and chemical activity analysis

Cripps, Jonathan Edwin

The pattern and style of deglaciation of the northern Thompson Plateau, southern British Columbia

Sharma, Iris

Teachers\u27 perspectives of team teaching in the elementary classroom

Haslhofer, Ella

Breaking barriers: Improving access to abortion care in rural Alberta

Muller Myrdahl, Tiffany

At the Intersection of Equity and Innovation: Trans Inclusion in the City of Vancouver

Lee, Wonchul

Development of a defect-controlled rapid 3D printing system for flexible plastic materials

Simon Fraser University

Not a member yet