 The tech that I'm taking is a little bit different. It's a little bit more small-scale than what Simon's been talking about. I guess that over the past few years, a number of quite extensive training programs for librarians have been developed. So, Simon mentioned the Manta program, and people may be aware of the Addie and Rose program out of the University of Sheffield as well. So, they're quite extensive curricula that take people through some lecture-style presentations, and there might be course readings and quizzes and hands-on kind of activities. But I guess with the exception of the program at La Trobe that Simon's described, and probably the immersive mathematics program at Melbourne, most universities haven't really gone down the path of developing a really extensive program for their staff like that yet. So, most of us who are moving into this area are really upskilling, I guess, through circumvents and projects, through attending webinars like this, and webinar, perhaps doing some professional reading, engaging at conferences on Twitter and things like that. So, in that context, I think, kind of in-house introductory workshops have a really important part to play in bringing groups of librarians together at an institution and getting them to develop a shared understanding, even if that's somewhat basic of research data management in the context of their institution. And what prompted me to write the paper for a research last year was the success that we'd had with a scenario as part of introductory workshops. And the success of that scenario has prompted me to do a bit more digging into scenario-based learning more from an educational perspective. So, I think it's applicable not just to library training, but also to the training that we, as librarians, might want to do out with the research community and our organisations. So, what I'm talking about today really comes out of work both at Monash and at Griffith. So, in 2012, we had a couple of half-day workshops for library staff at Monash. And in 2013, there were three quite similar sessions at Griffith. So, at both of those institutions, the first part of the workshop was a little bit of reflection about what the participants hoped to get out of. That was followed up, I guess, with a more sort of lecture-oriented session where we talked about what do we mean by research data, talked a bit about the funding agency requirements and some of the trends in scholarly communication around data citation, data journals, repositories, and that type of thing. But the second half of the session, we really went into this group exercise, which involved a scenario. And that's what I'm going to talk about today. So, the way that the scenarios worked, they presented a little narrative about a higher degree by research student at the start of their project. They had a name, they had a little biography that described who they were and why they wanted to do this PhD that they were embarking on. They talked a little bit about their research topic and the methods that they were going to be using to get their unanalyzed data. It's part of that. And it also talked a little bit about their goals around the dissemination of their research results. So, the groups were asked to have a look at this scenario and then to identify at least two potential data management issues, one technical and one non-technical, and we asked them to report back. So, they were given big pads and whiteboard pens, got to have a bit of a discussion, and then someone volunteered to be described and report back to the lab group at the end. So, in terms of how the session actually went down, the discussions that this exercise generated were really lively, both at Griffith and at Monash. At Monash, the attendees said that the scenarios were the most useful part of the workshop. So, they went down so well that I actually shared them on the Ans Bulletin board at that point and let people know that it had been a really good exercise. The groups were actually able to identify multiple data management challenges in a range of areas. So, storage, file format, software hardware, obsolescence issues, ownership, copywriter issues, ethical issues. So, even though we only asked them to come up with two, most of them filled the page and came up with many, many more than what they were asked for. The librarians participating seemed to be able to make connections between their existing knowledge and skills and those needed for this new area through this exercise. So, that applied both to fairly library-specific areas like copywriting and intellectual property, but also to things that you might consider just more common sense areas like storage and backup. Attendees really engaged with the scenarios from other disciplines as well. So, having the groups report back on their scenario and their findings from it really brought out the similarities and differences across disciplines. Discussing it as a group as well, I guess enabled staff in different roles and from different levels to work together. So, some of the staff that were involved had had a bit more experience, perhaps through working on an Ans project and they were able to share what they had learned with other staff through doing this exercise. But something that I also observed at Griffith was that some new professionals that hadn't really had much chance to have any practical experience in this area still made really valuable contributions to the discussion. And my take on that would be that probably the inclusion of things like digital collectings and data management in the library school curricula is starting to expose people to that in a way that if you've gone through library school 15 years ago like I did, you didn't really get that. So, in looking at what we mean by a scenario, Ed Earrington is one of the people who's written quite a lot in this area. So, this was his kind of definition. The scenarios that we developed weren't developed with any reference to all this literature about scenario-based learning. I'm not really an expert in educational development at all. My take on this, I guess, from a more technical background would be it's a little bit like personas and web development. But I wasn't familiar with all the literature around this. But the positive react into it has really prompted me to look at it in a bit more detail. So, the proponents of this kind of learning argue that it's a really effective way of engaging participants in building skills and professional areas where there's some kind of need to interact with clients in the workplace to diagnose problems and determine a kind of intervention. So, the kinds of professionals that often this type of learning is applied to. Clinicians, emergency response personnel, teachers, nurses, vet scientists, a whole bunch of groups. So, over the next few seconds, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the best practice suggestions from the educational development literature and how that didn't relate to what we did at Managing Griffith. So, I guess the first thing to say is that those scenarios were developed really quickly. And I didn't give a lot of thought at the time to thinking about what skills we were actually trying to develop in the people that were participating. So, the scenarios that were there wouldn't actually address the skills that you would need to consult with a researcher if the primary purpose of that was about advocating about the benefits of data management or promoting institutional services like data storage. Because you do need that understanding of the broader environment and the application of, I guess, verbal communication skills and persuading negotiator. But on the other hand, if a consultation with a researcher is seen as being about a needs assessment or a GAC analysis, you might take that information away and then come back later to talk about what is needed. I think the focus then would be more on listening skills, maybe note-taking skills and the ability to ask open questions, which is something many of us would have been trained in, in reference interviews when we did our library training. So, I guess that where the scenario is going to be effective really depends on what you think the expected outcomes of a consultation type process might be. And I think that that wasn't really clear to me at the time. So, I think if we're asking librarians to consult with researchers, we need really clear goals for those conversations so that we can determine what skills are needed and how we can train people appropriately. The other thing, I guess, is there's different types of scenarios. So, problem-based scenarios involve decision-making or the analysis of a problem or a narrative that is usually incomplete or ambiguous. Issues-based scenarios involve exploring an issue from different and sometimes competing viewpoints, and that kind of can be useful where attitudes and beliefs and values are important factors. And speculative-based scenarios really require people to think about factors that might be going to impact on their profession in the future based on extrapolating from what we know now. So, understanding more about those different types of scenarios and making choices between them would definitely be something I would be looking at in future. So, the scenarios that were used at Monash and Griffith were very basic problem-based scenarios, but depending on the skills that librarians need, you might want to look at alternative or supplementary approaches. So, for example, when issues-based activity might look at something from the perspective of different stakeholders like the Vice-Chancellor, the Research Office, a 90-person or a librarian, and had impact on that in some of their training workshops. So, that ones would be really useful if it's about countering negative attitudes rather than just identifying factual problems and trying to solve them. A speculative-based approach that would give participants a chance to think about some broader professional issues. So, you could throw something out there, for example, what would it mean for our library if data sets suddenly became something that were counted for Herdick and ERA, that kind of thing. A third kind of lesson learned, I guess, is that while you can take a satirical approach or aim for a curriculum, most people are really going for a level of realism in developing these scenarios. So, when I was developing these scenarios, I really pulled together kind of an aggregate of a lot of the real-life issues that had emerged through email inquiries and through HDR training sessions in the couple of years previous to that. The other thing that I've always found very useful, which was suggested to me by a librarian at Monash, was just getting hold of some theses and articles from that discipline and reading the methods section so that you can get an insight into the kinds of methods people are using for capturing and analysing data in different disciplines. So, all of the scenarios did include details about the researchers' motivations and specific goals around what they wanted to do with their research at the end of the project. And some of that was around some non-judicial outputs, so including things like conference presentations or wanting to do a documentary for radio or perhaps produce a less scholarly kind of look rather than just the usual journal articles. And that seemed to go down quite well. It helped librarians to see the problems that the researchers might have as things that were going to affect them personally in terms of the achievement of their personal and professional goals at the end, not just as technical things that needed to be fixed as part of the project. I guess another lesson learned is really around complexity and ambiguity. So Andrew Cox from the University of Sheffield is one of the developers of the Addie and Rose curriculum for librarians and he has really emphasised the research data management just as in an area where simple solutions are available. So he talks about it as a wicked problem and says, you know, everyone's got a different perspective on it. There's all sorts of political and cultural and economic constraints. There's many ways that we can intervene, but it's not always clear to us what the effect of those actions might be. So that kind of situation appears to be when the practitioners of scenario-based learning say that SPL is good for. They argue that complex scenarios really discourage students from thinking that there are quick answers to problems that are going to change all the time. And so it's about encouraging people to focus on the journey rather than the destination in a way. But those practitioners of scenario-based learning also do say that while incompleteness is motivating for some people, that ambiguity actually makes a lot of other people quite uncomfortable. And I think my experience, both of my native Griffith, was that both institutions, the librarians, asked me to provide the answers to the exercise that we were doing. And while I didn't do that at my native, I did kind of willing to Griffith and provided a set of the scenarios with some kind of pointers to what I thought might have been possible things that they could have come up with. And I guess in retrospect, I feel like that did actually diminish the effectiveness of it as an activity. I guess it made me feel a bit sad that the librarians participating in those exercises didn't really trust their own judgment. And so I think there's an open question there for us as a community about our willingness to accept that something is just going to be complicated and messy and that we just have to find ways to deal with that both professionally and kind of person. So I guess just in conclusion, I think librarians need professional development opportunities that really explicitly address their changing roles and give them a way to take action. And so in real life, as a librarian's put in research and management, you are likely to be going out on your own. You're likely to be going out to the researcher's workspace, which might be quite unfamiliar to you. And you're really getting bombarded with information that's quite unstructured, might be incomplete, it could be full of new terminology and concepts like Simon was talking about. So in contrast to that, scenarios can be quite closely designed to highlight some things and minimise others. So I think it gives staff a way to come at a problem and explore it with their colleagues in an environment where they feel a bit safer than going out and doing that face-to-face with the researcher. I think there's a lot of further work that we could do in this area. As I say, I'm an Educational Design Specialist and I think that partnering with those kinds of people is going to be essential as we kind of move forwards with this. And the kinds of scenarios, these learning things I've been describing today, are not going to always be appropriate. So knowing when to adopt things and how to do it is something to think about. I guess that the scenarios I've described today, although they worked really well, they were very basic. And I guess through this research I've become aware that there's probably a lot more that could be done by looking at those different types of scenarios and seeing how they go. I guess I also wanted to say, you know, there's a need to evaluate the training programs that we're doing. So while those scenarios were really engaging for people at the time, it's not clear to me that they did it to lead to any change in practice by the people that attended. So I think more expressive feedback from the people that attended and maybe doing some kind of self-assessments before and after some of the training programs that we're running might assist us with determining whether we're kind of on the right track with building people's skills over time.