Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol Research trend: Hidden diamonds – The values and risks of online repository documents for forest policy and governance analysis Sari Rahayu a , Dwi Laraswati a , Andita A. Pratama a , Dwiko B. Permadi a , Muhammad A.K. Sahide b , Ahmad Maryudi a, ⁎ a Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia b Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Online repository Research methods Forest policy Forest governance Qualitative research Social research ABSTRACT Sound forest policy and governance analysis requires rich empirical evidence, collected through the use of a (possibly) combination of various scientific methods. Scientific communities are currently offered with abun- dance of digital data, information and scientific materials, made fully or partially available through the explosive development of various types of online repositories. Nonetheless, the rich treasures are not optimally used in forest policy and governance analysis yet. We analysed how researchers can make use of online repositories, analysing their values and risks. Using the case of community forestry policy and elaborating the Indonesian contexts, we have observed several types of online institutional and non-profit repositories, archiving valuable documents/ materials for qualitative inquiries. Valuable materials found from the observed online repositories include policy documents (laws, regulations, decrees), local journal articles, biophysical and socio-demographic data, groups’ constitutions, community forestry rights and agreements, local maps, as well as graphics and photos. We understand the concerns about the scientific quality of the repository materials. Before utilising them, researchers are encouraged to have clear visions and objectives on the types of materials relevant to their studies. 1. Introduction Over the past two decades, forest policy has become a vibrant re- search sub-discipline in political sciences, even regarded as one of the most advanced areas of the multiple social science disciplines (Maryudi et al., 2018). It focuses on analysing and explaining contemporary complex issues and challenges with regard to the nexus between human and forests (Fisher et al., 2017). Forest policy analysis has also spurred a number of advances, in terms of theoretical frameworks (e.g. Arts and Buizer, 2009; Krott et al., 2014) and methodological innovations (e.g. Schusser et al., 2012; Siegner et al., 2018). Increasingly, forest policy research has relied on qualitative ap- proach of document content analysis (Siegner et al., 2018). Analysis of documents has been used as either the essential approach (for instance see Sahide et al., 2018) or a complement of the arguably more common methods of in-depth interviews and participant observations (e.g. Fatem et al., 2018; Susanti and Maryudi, 2016). With a few exceptions of recent work (e.g. Sahide and Giessen, 2015), the current scientific literature is yet to optimally use materials from repositories as sources of empirical evidence. A repository refers to a (physical and online) storage system of artefacts/ materials (documents, data, information), used usually for reporting, analysis and sharing (Bernstein and Dayal, 1994). To illustrate the limited use of repository materials in scientific work, we analysed Scopus-indexed literature on the topic of community forestry policy. We use the topic as an example since it has become a prominent topic of forest policy and governance over the past four decades, allowing us to collect as many as possible scientific literature. More importantly, there are substantial data gaps, such as population dynamics, market forces, and biophysical factors, in the current com- munity forestry literature (Hajjar et al., 2016). In Scopus, we found in total of 1070 articles, 1 only a quarter of which used repository materials as empirical evidence. One of the possible explanations of the limited use of repository materials in previous studies may include the difficulties in accessing them. Trigg et al. (1999) point out that important documents were https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.009 Received 5 December 2018; Received in revised form 15 January 2019; Accepted 15 January 2019 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. E-mail address: ahmad_maryudi@ugm.ac.id (A. Maryudi). 1 Using the following keywords: (“community forestry” OR”social forestry” OR “Community forest tenure” OR” small scale forestry” OR “smallholder forestry” OR” community based forestry” OR” community based forest management” OR “customary forest” OR “village forest” OR “rural forest”) AND* Policy, Forest Policy and Economics 100 (2019) 254–257 1389-9341/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. T