Applying the kim and kim model to institutional repository management in academic libraries, southwest Nigeria

Applying the kim and kim model to institutional repository management in academic libraries, southwest Nigeria Sirajudeen Femi Bakrin University Library, Fountain University Osogbo, Nigeria Sunday Tunmibi Department of Information Management, Lead City University, Ibadan Abstract Evaluating institutional repositories (IR) management is challenging. Various indicators used by authors often result in incomplete assessments and persistent operational issues. This study employed a mixed-method approach, combining a descriptive survey design, structured questionnaires, and in-depth interviews to apply the Kim and Kim IR Evaluation Model in managing IRs in academic libraries in Southwest Nigeria. The study involved 352 library personnel from 14 university libraries and their librarians. All personnel and librarians formed the sample size due to the low population. Data collection included a structured 30-item questionnaire based on the Kim and Kim Model dimensions—content, policy (slightly modified), system and network, and use, user, and submitter—and an interview guide. Ten librarians participated in interviews, while four were unreachable. Of 352 distributed questionnaires, 298 were returned, and 246 valid responses (70% return rate) were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Interview data were thematically analysed. Findings revealed that content, system and network, policy, and use/user/submitter dimensions significantly influenced IR management. However, challenges such as low submission rates, lack of deterrents for non-submission, and language barriers for non-English speakers were noted. The study recommends fostering a culture of active participation through mandatory submission policies and continuous policy development. Keywords institutional repository, IR evaluation, Kim and Kim model, academic libraries, southwest Nigeria Submitted: 20 January 2025; accepted: 25 March 2025 Introduction Institutional Repositories have enjoyed a place of eminence in the collection, organisation, preservation and dissemination of intellectual outputs of academic institutions. Managing an Institutional Repository (IR) is a formidable task whose complexity is often overlooked in academic libraries. Beyond the human factors involved, the materials and systems required for IR management add another layer of complexity. This broad scope makes the otherwise routine task even more challenging. Like many other countries, Nigeria has embraced the adoption of IRs to showcase the intellectual products of the academia. However, maintaining these repositories through effectively managing internal and external stakeholders and the necessary systems and materials remains a significant challenge, particularly in developing countries like Nigeria. The result is the visibility challenge and incomprehensive content that needs to be updated. Several authors have attempted to develop indicators for the evaluation of institutional repositories with particular reference to those of academic extraction due to observations that many of these repositories lack Corresponding author: Sirajudeen Femi Bakrin, University Library, Fountain University Osogbo, Nigeria. Email: [email protected] Original Manuscript Information Development 1–15 © The Author(s) 2025 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/02666669251333758 journals.sagepub.com/home/idv models for the evaluation of operations and implementation (González-Sanabria et al., 2022). Some authors restricted their evaluation to metadata and vocabulary control used by professional IR managers, and depositors engaged in self-archiving to create synergy and consistency between indexing and retrieval (Fujita, 2022). In contrast, others, like Zahedi Nooghabi (2015), based their evaluation on information systems theories. In another instance, internal and external management accounted for the indicators of evaluating IR performance in Spain (Serrano-Vicente et al., 2018). However, in Africa, specifically, Nigeria, content upload, submission, and use have been the focus of IR evaluation (Baro and Nwabueze-Echedom, 2023; Kumah and Filson, 2022). Also, many frameworks had been propounded solely to evaluate repository performance. Fuhr et al. (2001) and Larsen discussed frameworks that primarily considered content, system, and use/user management but outrightly blotted out policy (a key measure in IR management). Similarly, Kanto (2005) proposed a framework that included content, policy and system management without considering the purpose of IR establishment (use). Recently, the FAIREST principles were proposed as a framework to assess the functionality of appropriate solutions to implement a repository (D’Aquin et al., 2023). While it concentrates intensely on the applications’ functionality, no consideration is accorded policy matters and content recruitment, the essence of the search for appropriate IR platforms. The Kim and Kim model for IR evaluation indicators is a product of research articles by scholars on the rightful model for evaluating the management of institutional repositories. In 2006, The Korean Education and Research Information Service funded a research activity to assess the performance of forty (40) different repositories in Korea (Kim and Kim, 2006). In this assessment, four key elements and thirty-four indicators became prominent in the evaluation. These same assessment metrics were echoed in another research work (Kim and Kim, 2008) aimed at considering a global standard for evaluating IR management in 2008. In furtherance of the earlier work funded by The Korean Education and Research Information Service, the project’s authors later developed an evaluation standard for assessing the performance of IR of four (4) categories with nineteen indicators. These categories or elements are content, management and policy, systems and network, use, user, and submitter (Kim and Kim, 2008). This model is widely recognised for its strategic framework in repository management evaluation. It addresses divergent areas and provides for the alliance of the various stakeholders who play vital roles in the operations and management of institutional repositories. Hence, it is adopted as a framework for this study. Effective user management in institutional repositories (IRs) centres on a user-centred approach, prioritising its diverse user base’s experiences and information needs. This perspective requires ongoing communication to understand user expectations, address challenges, and advance engagement. Additionally, a commitment to providing a seamless, accessible, and supportive user experience is essential for encouraging active participation and sustained use of the repository. Without these foundational elements, even the most robust repository may fail to realise its potential fully. Beyond managing the content and human elements, the technology underlying the IR plays a central role in its overall success. While modern repository software tends to be flexible and adaptable, selecting the appropriate platform is critical. A poorly chosen application can undermine the repository’s functionality, scalability, and usability, laying the groundwork for an ineffective system. Therefore, carefully considering technical requirements, compatibility, and long-term sustainability is crucial during decision-making. Equally important is formulating clear and comprehensive policies for the institutional repository. Such policies establish the framework for effective management, governance, and operational consistency. They help ensure compliance with relevant standards, laws, and best practices while addressing key areas such as content submission, copyright, data preservation, and user access. Well-defined policies guide the repository’s development and provide a basis for accountability and continuous improvement. In essence, the success of an IR depends on the interplay of its content, users, technology, and policies. Research questions 1. What is the extent of content management within institutional repositories by personnel in academic libraries across Southwest Nigeria? 2. What is the degree of effectiveness of systems and networks in managing institutional repositories among personnel in academic libraries in Southwest Nigeria? 2Information Development 0(0) 3. What is the management level of policies in institutional repositories by academic library personnel in Southwest Nigeria? 4. What is the level of use, user, and submitter in the management of institutional repositories among staff in academic libraries in Southwest Nigeria Literature review The process of collecting content into Institutional Repositories (IRs) is complex and remains a significant challenge in IR management, as highlighted by Baro and Nwabueze-Echedom (2023) and Falah et al. (2021). Meanwhile, Scott and Swanepoel (2018) observed that recruiting content to repositories in countries like Canada and South Africa has been particularly demanding due to faculty members’low participation levels. Similarly, Njagi and Namande (2018) reported that this reluctance to submit research items has resulted in a low population of Kenyan university IRs with adequate content. One notable reason for this hesitation is the concern over plagiarism of research outputs, which has led faculty members, especially Library and Information Science (LIS) scholars, to delay or entirely avoid submitting their works to the repository, as observed by Abrizah et al. (2015). In some cases, the creation of submission agreements by institutions hosting IRs further complicates the process, deterring authors from actively participating in content submission (Rinehart and Cunningham, 2017). This issue is compounded in some academic contexts, such as South Africa and Nigeria, where scholars express concerns about the risks of submitting their research to repositories. Others face challenges due to a lack of technical expertise in self-archiving. These difficulties contribute to the dominance of electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) in the IRs of both countries, as Posigha and Eseivo (2024) noted. In Nigeria, the low disposition toward submitting research works to IRs among lecturers was documented by Okoroma (2018), who attributed it to factors such as low awareness and limited familiarity with the concept of repositories. This lack of understanding continues to hinder the successful collection and management of content in IRs, making it an ongoing concern for academic institutions and researchers alike. Content recruitment in institutional repositories is summarily characterised by several challenges, including low volume, poor quality, inadequacy, and, in some cases, outdated materials, as highlighted by Jelagat et al. (2021). Lagzian et al. (2015) identified technology as one of the six critical factors for effectively managing institutional repositories (IRs). However, the irony lies in the fact that communication technology infrastructure, rather than enabling smooth operations, has often posed significant challenges to the efficient functioning of repositories (Asadi et al., 2019). This perspective was echoed by Ndegwa (2023) in their research on the efficacy of digital preservation practices in Kenyan repositories, where the lack of robust technological infrastructure emerged as a significant obstacle. Even when the necessary technology is available, another issue arises: the inadequacy or unavailability of skilled library personnel to operate and maintain these systems effectively (Baro and Nwabueze-Echedom, 2023; Adeyemi et al., 2025). This dual challenge of insufficient infrastructure and a lack of skilled personnel was aptly summarised by Kumah and Filson (2022) and Adetunji et al. (2017), who referred to it as a deficit in ICT connectivity and infrastructure. This persistent gap has hindered the seamless functioning and management of repositories. Despite these challenges, there have been notable strides in addressing these issues. Johnston et al. (2024) highlighted recent advancements aimed at enhancing the reproducibility of datasets and improving the interoperability of IRs. These efforts have concentrated on equipping repositories with capabilities for integration into broader institutional information and library management systems. Such integration, as noted by Russell and Day (2010) and Zervas et al. (2019), facilitates both intraand interorganisational collaboration in research and learning. This collaborative potential has been further emphasised by Vasantha et al. (2024), who stressed the value of such systems in fostering partnerships across institutions. Given these developments, Macgregor’s (2020) call for repository optimisation has become increasingly relevant. Optimisation efforts are necessary to create repositories that effectively address the needs and aspirations of both users and authors, ensuring that these systems not only support academic and research activities but also meet the evolving expectations of their stakeholders. Researchers have highlighted significant weaknesses in institutional repositories (IRs), particularly in policy formulation and content management (Falah et al., 2021). One of the critical issues identified is the absence of practical and functional policies, Bakrin and Tunmibi: Applying the kim and kim model to institutional repository management 3 which can render repositories underutilised or even empty (Mbughuni et al., 2023). In cases where policies exist, they are often limited in scope and coverage, leaving substantial aspects of repository management inadequately addressed or completely unattended (Anderson and Leachman, 2020). Further compounding the issue, Roy et al. (2023) observed that many policies remain in the early stages of development and lack the necessary depth or structure for effective implementation. Existing literature has only lightly touched upon IR policies, providing scant details or analysis (Roy et al., 2022). This minimal attention has resulted in critical gaps in the scope of policies, as noted by several authors. For example, Njagi and Namande (2018) pointed out deficiencies in submission policies, while Scott and Swanepoel (2018) and Baro and Nwabueze-Echedom (2023) identified copyright concerns as a persistent challenge. Even in instances where IR policies are present, such as in Ghanaian universities, their effectiveness is often limited. Kakai (2021) and Imoro and Saurombe (2024) noted that these policies primarily focus on content submission and rely on voluntary and persuasive approaches, lacking enforcement mechanisms or consequences for non-compliance. This weak implementation undermines the policies’ability to ensure consistent and reliable content contributions, ultimately compromising the repository’s ability to serve its intended purpose as a robust academic and research output platform. Scholars broadly classify institutional repository (IR) users into three categories: authors, information seekers, and data creators or maintainers (McKay, 2007). However, it is paradoxical that IR usage remains low among university lecturers, a key group of authors, mainly due to insufficient advocacy and promotion efforts (Idiegbeyan-Ose et al., 2020; Kumah and Filson, 2022). This lack of awareness and engagement has hindered the widespread adoption of IRs within academic circles despite their potential to enhance research visibility and access. Two critical factors influencing repositories, particularly open-access institutional repositories, are user satisfaction and the intention to reuse them (Ntim and Fombad, 2021). When users find IRs accessible, reliable, and valuable, they are more likely to utilise and contribute to them. Unfortunately, self-archiving rates remain low, placing the burden of content upload primarily on library personnel, even though the contributory model of IRs is designed to encourage participation from diverse stakeholders, including faculty (Xia and Sun, 2007). This imbalance undermines the goal of creating comprehensive and diverse repositories. Trust in the system, coupled with easy and permanent accessibility, is a pivotal factor motivating faculty members to deposit their information resources into IRs (Kim, 2011). Faculty must feel confident that their contributions will be preserved, accessible, and adequately managed over time. Moreover, accurate metrics, such as Citable Content Downloads, are essential for IR managers to understand the repository’s usage patterns and gauge its impact on patrons (Obrien et al., 2017). These metrics provide valuable insights into the repository’s effectiveness in meeting user needs. Inadequate user awareness about the existence and benefits of IRs is another significant barrier to their adoption. Njagi and Namande (2018) noted that many potential users are unaware of the repositories’availability, which limits patronage and prevents IRs from achieving their full potential. Methodology The study employed a mixed-method approach, utilising a descriptive survey design incorporating a structured questionnaire and in-depth interviews to gather data on applying the Kim and Kim IR Evaluation Model in managing institutional repositories by personnel in university libraries in Southwest Nigeria. The study population comprised 352 library personnel from 14 university libraries that have adopted institutional repositories in the region. Additionally, University Librarians from these 14 universities formed the second component of the study population. Purposive sampling was used to select 14 universities (federal, state, and private) based on their adoption of institutional repositories. Total enumeration sampling was then applied to include the entire population of 352 library personnel due to the relatively small population size. The same sampling approach was used to select all 14 university librarians for the interview sessions. Data collection employed a combination of an interview guide and a structured questionnaire designed with appropriate scales. The questionnaire comprised 30 items organised into four dimensions outlined in the Kim and Kim Model: content, policy (with slight modification), system and network, and use, user, and submitter. The researcher administered the questionnaire and interview personally with the help of a research assistant from each university to ensure the chances of a 4Information Development 0(0) high rate of return of the instruments. The research assistants were trained for two days on questionnaire administration and relevant skills that could aid the instrument administration and data collection. Ten (10) university librarians participated in the in-depth interview, while four (4) were unreachable. Three of the four universities were privately owned, and one was a federal university. The responding librarians were significantly represented from both categories, with five from private universities and four from the federal university. As a result, potential biases have been minimised. Three hundred and fifty-two (352) copies of the questionnaire were distributed, but two hundred and ninety-eight (298) copies were returned. Out of the total number of questionnaire copies returned, two hundred and forty-six (246) copies were certified as duly filled and considered valid for analysis. This questionnaire accounts for a 70% return rate. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis. Frequency, percentage and mean are the statistical tools used to analyse demographic and variable data. Data collected through interviews was analysed using a thematic approach. Data presentation According to Table 1, for content, 63.8% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that the selection of relevant information content is crucial to the efficient management of institutional repository in the library; 33.7% of the respondents to a great extent; 1.6% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.8% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.61. Also, 63.8% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that IR will aid the promotion of research and learning when quality materials are selected for upload; 32.9% of the respondents to a high extent; 2.4% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.8% of the respondents to very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.60. More so, 57.7% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that the currency of content in the repository is essential for its eventual management; 38.2% of the respondents to a high extent; 2.4% of the respondents to a low extent; and 1.6% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.52. Also, 56.5% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that to sustain the management of IR; there should be a regular update and review of content; 41.4% of the respondents to a high extent; 1.6% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.8% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.53. More so, 56.5% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that an IR that addresses diverse areas of study available in the institution makes management easier; 40.7% of the respondents to a high extent; 2.8% of the respondents to a low extent; and none Table 1. Content management in academic library repositories Content Management Very High High Low Very Low Mean The selection of relevant information content is crucial to the efficient management of institutional repository in the library 157 (63.8%) 83 (33.7%) 4 (1.6%) 2 (0.8%) 3.61 IR will aid the promotion of research and learning when quality materials are selected for upload 157 (63.8%) 81 (32.9%) 6 (2.4%) 2 (0.8%) 3.60 The currency of content in the repository is essential for its eventual management 142 (57.7%) 94 (38.2%) 6 (2.4%) 4 (1.6%) 3.52 To sustain the management of IR, there should be a regular update and review of content 139 (56.5%) 101 (41.1%) 4 (1.6%) 2 (0.8%) 3.53 An IR that addresses diverse areas of study available in the institution makes management easier 139 (56.5%) 100 (40.7%) 7 (2.8%) 0 (0.0%) 3.54 Beyond ETDs, journal articles and books, a well-managed IR should contain datasets, multimedia, and non-textual materials 130 (52.8%) 107 (43.5%) 7 (2.8%) 2 (0.8%) 3.48 The size of a repository assists the managers in meeting the information needs of the users and attracting potential patrons 128 (52.0%) 108 (43.9%) 7 (2.8%) 3 (1.2%) 3.47 Collection development in IR is challenged by low material submission 116 (47.2%) 107 (43.5%) 20 (8.1%) 3 (1.2%) 3.37 Weighted Mean 3.52 Bakrin and Tunmibi: Applying the kim and kim model to institutional repository management 5 of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.54. In addition, 52.8% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that beyond ETDs, journal articles and books, a well-managed IR should contain datasets, multimedia, and non-textual materials; 43.5% of the respondents to a high extent; 2.8% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.8% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.48. Similarly, 52.0% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that the size of a repository assists the managers in meeting the information needs of the users and attracting potential patrons; 43.9% of the respondents to a high extent; 2.8% of the respondents to a low extent; and 1.2% of the respondents to very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.47. Also, 47.2% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that collection development in IR is challenged by low material submission; 43.5% of the respondents to a high extent; 8.1% of the respondents to a low extent; and 1.2% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.37. The weighted mean has a value of 3.52, which suggests that the respondents agreed to a high level of content as an indicator of the level of management of institutional repositories among personnel in academic libraries of Southwest Nigeria. For systems and networks, Table 2 shows that 54.5% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that the high performance of IR managers is a function of the available IR software/hardware and its administration; 41.1% of the respondents to a high extent; 3.7% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.8% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.49. Also, 53.3% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that managing IR software/hardware can be very troubling in a library where the personnel do not have expertise in IT; 39.0% of the respondents to a high extent; 6.1% of the respondents to a low extent; and 1.6% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.44. More so, 49.2% of the respondents agreed to a high extent that interoperability of institutional repositories can aid in the management by granting access to other repositories; 45.5% of the respondents to a very high extent; 4.5% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.8% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.39. Also, 56.9% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that multidisciplinary and collaborative research can be better enhanced when an IR is connected to repositories of other academic institutions; 37.8% of the respondents to a high extent; 4.9% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.4% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.51. Likewise, 59.3% of the respondents agreed to a very high Table 2. Effectiveness of systems and networks in ir management Systems and Networks Very High Low Very Low Mean The high performance of the IR managers is a function of the available IR software/hardware and its administration 134 (54.5%) 101 (41.1%) 9 (3.7%) 2 (0.8%) 3.49 Managing IR software/hardware can be very troubling in a library where the personnel do not have expertise in IT 131 (53.3%) 96 (39.0%) 15 (6.1%) 4 (1.6%) 3.44 Interoperability of institutional repositories can aid in the management by granting access to other repositories 112 (45.5%) 121 (49.2%) 11 (4.5%) 2 (0.8%) 3.39 Multidisciplinary and collaborative research can be better enhanced when an IR is connected to repositories of other academic institutions 140 (56.9%) 93 (37.8%) 12 (4.9%) 1 (0.4%) 3.51 Integrating IR into other library management systems, such as OPAC, can lead to better visibility and content accessibility 146 (59.3%) 86 (35.0%) 11 (4.5%) 3 (1.2%) 3.52 When there is integration of IR to other library systems, efficiency increases in library operations 149 (60.6%) 86 (35.0%) 11 (4.5%) 0 (0.0%) 3.56 Though technological innovation in library routine is inevitable, it may pose challenges if there is no compatibility 120 (48.8%) 119 (48.4%) 6 (2.4%) 1 (0.4%) 3.46 Regular maintenance of technological equipment guarantees a high level of performance 161 (65.4%) 72 (29.3%) 12 (4.9%) 1 (0.4%) 3.60 Weighted Mean 3.50 6Information Development 0(0) extent that integrating IR into other library management systems such as OPAC can lead to better visibility and content accessibility; 35.0% of the respondents to a high extent; 4.5% of the respondents to a low extent; and 1.2% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.52. In addition, 60.6% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that when there is an integration of IR into other library systems, efficiency increases in library operations; 35.0% of the respondents to a high extent; 4.5% of the respondents to a low extent; and none of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.56. Also, 48.8% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that though technological innovation in library routine is inevitable, it may pose challenges if there is no compatibility; 48.4% of the respondents to a high extent; 2.4% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.4% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.46. Also, 65.4% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that regular maintenance of technological equipment guarantees a high level of performance; 29.3% of the respondents to a high extent; 4.9% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.4% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.60. The weighted mean has a value of 3.50, which suggests that the respondents agreed to a high level of systems and networks as indicators of management of institutional repositories among personnel in academic libraries of Southwest Nigeria. As shown in Table 3, for IR policy, 59.3% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that the library should constantly engage the university community to create awareness for the IR; 37.0% of the respondents to a high extent; 3.7% of the respondents to a low extent; and none of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.56. Also, 54.1% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that advocacy and promotional activities on IR should consider all stakeholders such as administrators, content creators and other interested parties; 40.7% of the respondents to a high extent; 5.3% of the respondents to a low extent; and none of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.49. In addition, 53.3% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that to market IR, a robust marketing strategy properly is needed by the library handlers; 41.1% of the respondents to a high extent; 5.7% of the respondents to a low extent; and none of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.48. Also, 48.0% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that new media are veritable channels to Table 3. Policy management in institutional repositories Institutional Repository Policy Very High High Low Very Low Mean The library should constantly engage the university community to create awareness for the IR 146 (59.3%) 91 (37.0%) 9 (3.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3.56 Advocacy and promotional activities on IR should consider all stakeholders, such as administrators, content creators and other interested parties 133 (54.1%) 100 (40.7%) 13 (5.3%) 0 (0.0%) 3.49 To properly market IR, a robust marketing strategy is needed by the library handlers 131 (53.3%) 101 (41.1%) 14 (5.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3.48 New media are veritable channels to market IR to the intended audience 118 (48.0%) 115 (46.7%) 12 (4.9%) 1 (0.4%) 3.42 Digitisation of non-electronic materials is a sure way of preserving publications and archival materials in the IR 147 (59.8%) 89 (36.2%) 7 (2.8%) 3 (1.2%) 3.54 The quality of the format of the IR content is another means of future preservation 140 (56.9%) 102 (41.5%) 4 (1.6%) 0 (0.0%) 3.55 Policies on archiving, data curation, preservation and use are essential to IR management 129 (52.4%) 111 (45.1%) 6 (2.4%) 0 (0.0%) 3.50 Copyright and licensing issues have the potential to shape the flow of IR management 134 (54.5%) 101 (41.1%) 9 (3.7%) 2 (0.8%) 3.49 Weighted Mean 3.50 Bakrin and Tunmibi: Applying the kim and kim model to institutional repository management 7 market IR to the intended audience; 46.7% of the respondents to a high extent; 4.9% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.4% of the respondents agreed to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.42. Moreover, 59.8% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that digitisation of non-electronic materials is a sure way of preserving publications and archival materials in the IR; 36.2% of the respondents to a high extent; 2.8% of the respondents to a low extent; and 1.2% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.54. More so, 56.9% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that the quality of the format of the IR content is another means of future preservation; 41.5% of the respondents to a high extent; 1.6% of the respondents to a low extent; and none of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.55. More so, 52.4% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that policies on archiving, data curation, preservation and use are essential to IR management; 45.1% of the respondents to a high extent; 2.4% of the respondents to a low extent; and none of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.50. Similarly, 54.5% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that copyright and licensing issues have the potential to shape the flow of IR management; 41.1% of the respondents to a high extent; 3.7% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.8% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.49. The weighted mean has a value of 3.50, which suggests that the respondents agreed to a high level of IR policy as an indicator of the management of institutional repositories among personnel in academic libraries of Southwest Nigeria. For use, user, submitter, Table 4 indicates that 53.7% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that the use of IR content is the primary object of creating and maintaining the repository; 40.7% of the respondents to a high extent; 5.3% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.4% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.48. Also, 53.7% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that incorporating metrics and the use counts will aid in determining the rate of content patronage; 40.7% of the respondents to a high extent; 5.3% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.4% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.48. Meanwhile, 61.4% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that users are likely to patronise the Table 4. The use, user, and submitter in the management of IR Use, User, Submitter Very High High Low Very Low Mean The use of IR content is the primary object of creating and maintaining the repository 132 (53.7%) 100 (40.7%) 13 (5.3%) 1 (0.4%) 3.48 Incorporating metrics and the use counts will aid in determining the rate of content patronage 132 (53.7%) 100 (40.7%) 13 (5.3%) 1 (0.4%) 3.48 Users are likely to patronise the IR more if the IR is interactive enough 151 (61.4%) 84 (34.1%) 9 (3.7%) 2 (0.8%) 3.56 The language barrier often serves as an inhibitor to the use of IR by library patrons 101 (41.1%) 100 (40.7%) 34 (13.8%) 11 (4.5%) 3.18 Having multiple information sources to choose from and getting needed information on a single platform creates joy for IR users 141 (57.3%) 96 (39.0%) 6 (2.4%) 3 (1.2%) 3.52 The easy self-archiving model can rekindle the interest in submitting articles to IR content creators 123 (50.0%) 112 (45.5%) 10 (4.1%) 1 (0.4%) 3.45 A cordial relationship between the library personnel and submitters can further motivate the latter to upload their publications 140 (56.9%) 96 (39.0%) 9 (3.7%) 1 (0.4%) 3.52 Content creators are encouraged to submit their works to IR when library personnel assist in digitising print copies of their publications 137 (55.7%) 98 (39.8%) 9 (3.7%) 2 (0.8%) 3.50 Weighted Mean 3.46 Overall Weighted Mean 3.50 Decision rule: < 2.5 =low; 2.5 =moderate; > 2.5 =high. Note: Very High (4), High (3), Low (2), Very Low (1). 8Information Development 0(0) IR more if the IR is interactive enough; 34.1% of the respondents to a high extent; 3.7% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.8% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.56. Also, 41.1% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that the language barrier often serves as an inhibitor to the use of IR by library patrons; 40.7% of the respondents to a high extent; 13.8% of the respondents to a low extent; and 4.5% of the respondents to a very low extent. On the average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.18. In addition, 57.3% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that having multiple information sources to choose from and getting needed information on a single platform creates joy for IR users; 39.0% of the respondents to a high extent; 2.4% of the respondents to a low extent; and 1.2% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.52. More so, 50.0% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that an easy self-archiving model can rekindle the interest in submitting articles to IR content creators; 45.5% of the respondents to a high extent; 4.1% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.4% of the respondents to a very low extent. On the average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.45. Also, 56.9% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that cordial relationship between the library personnel and submitters can further motivate the latter to upload their publications; 39.0% of the respondents to a high extent; 3.7% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.4% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.52. More so, 55.7% of the respondents agreed to a very high extent that content creators are encouraged to submit their works to IR when library personnel assist in digitising print copies of their publications; 39.8% of the respondents to a high extent; 3.7% of the respondents to a low extent; and 0.8% of the respondents to a very low extent. On average, the responses indicate a mean value of 3.50. The weighted mean has a value of 3.46, which suggests that the respondents agreed to a high level of use, user, and submitter as an indicator of management of institutional repositories among personnel in academic libraries of Southwest Nigeria. The overall weighted mean for the management level of institutional repositories among personnel in academic libraries of Southwest Nigeria is 3.50. This suggests that the management level of institutional repositories among personnel in academic libraries of Southwest Nigeria is also high. Thematic analysis (qualitative findings) The study used thematic analysis for the interview, necessitating transcription of the interview recordings and subsequent coding stages. Before publishing the report, the authors read the transcripts to identify potential themes and sub-themes. Thematic analysis for the two questions reveals consistent themes from the responses. Below is the breakdown of these themes: Question 1: how would you rate the library’s and personnel’s performance in managing the institutional repository? Four themes were identified under this question, namely: 1. Positive performance rating Under this theme, two sub-themes were produced: high ratings and self-awareness of progress. The majority of the respondents rated the performance of their libraries and personnel at a high or very high level. These ratings were buttressed by several achievements recorded in the libraries. An interviewee attested to this. 3rd UL: We have been able to get papers that were not originally published online to be online. The lecturers and the researchers have all their publications in the repository. The participants acknowledged and highlighted the areas of excellent performance and where they need further improvements. 10th UL: I can rate us 7 out of 10 9th UL: I have been satisfied with the way we have been managing the system, not minding the fact that sometimes you have technical hitches 1. Success factors Two factors were identified as responsible for the successful management of the IR in Southwest Nigerian academic libraries. These factors are the commitment of library personnel and the support rendered to the library by the ICT units. The participants Bakrin and Tunmibi: Applying the kim and kim model to institutional repository management 9