 Hello, thank you for joining us. We will be starting in about 90 seconds Welcome and thank you for joining us. We will be starting in about a little less than 60 seconds Thank you so much for joining us and we will be getting started now So welcome. You are at the first of the project briefings for the CNI spring 2020 virtual meeting I'm Cliff Lynch the director of CNI and I wanted to just take a moment to Extend a welcome to everybody who's joining us today I hope that you will find this and the series of project briefings that we have scheduled over the course of the next two months to be very valuable and informative and I will Be introducing our speakers in just a moment I think most of you are probably familiar with zoom at this point. It seems to have taken over many of our lives I will just note on this one. We will be using the Q&A Button down at the bottom of your screen to take questions and you can ask questions at any point, but we will be The presenters will be Fielding all of the questions in the in the at the end of their session So Let me Introduce our speakers They are both from Ithaca SNR Christine Wolfe Eisenberg and Jennifer Frederick They are gonna Share with us the first public release I believe of the key findings from their 2019 library survey and I'm really grateful for that for them Coming to do this at CNI We have a long tradition with this survey Which has been taking place periodically for almost a decade now so it's actually a very valuable longitudinal data set and Ithaca has been kind enough to use us as the initial release venue for many of these For many of these surveys So that's all I have to say. I will turn it over to Jennifer and Christine and Diane Goldenberg Hart from CNI will Pop up at the end and moderate the questions Over to you Jennifer and Christine Wonderful, thanks so much Cliff for for that warm warm introduction and thanks everyone for for being here today As Cliff mentioned we are here to talk to you about the findings from our latest cycle of the library director survey Which we've been fielding at Ithaca SNR for the past past decade or so and we just released The report of findings resulting from this project on our website earlier this morning So we'll make sure to circulate that link in the in the chat in just a bit So this is a project which really examines strategy and leadership issues From the perspective of academic library deans and directors at four-year institutions and I want to want to start by Generally acknowledging that a lot has changed over the last few months, especially in the last last couple of weeks These these results may may function as a time capsule of sorts given when when data collection occurred And you'll hear from us a number of times about how results may have been different if we were to survey later and And of course strategies and policies will only continue to change So we are planning on conducting another library director survey this fall to to address those specific changes So I also want to want to kick this off by saying saying thank you for for being here today I obviously wish that we were all together in in San Diego and I know that everyone's lives More broadly look quite different than than expected So also want to say want to say thank you to CNI For for pulling together this virtual format for the meeting series and doing doing so so quickly So thank you Cliff Diane Beth all the others who are who are making this possible So for those of you who who don't already know us. My name is Christine will Faisenberg I'm the manager of surveys and research here at at the gas and are and I'm joined by my colleague Jennifer Frederick who will be walking everyone through the key findings in just a couple of minutes We're keeping our cameras off for now So you can give your your undivided attention to to the findings But our intention if all goes according to plan is to enable a video chatting for the Q&A portion at the end So here at at the gas and are I know many of you are familiar with our work But our aim is really to help academic and cultural communities Particularly with the work that we do with with libraries publishers and museums help organizations Know what's coming next learn from from rigorous well-designed research studies and and adapt to a variety of of new realities and opportunities, so Some of the projects that you you might be familiar with aside from the one that we're here to to talk to you about today might be our large-scale surveys of of faculty members or community college students our Collaborative qualitative studies of faculty in particular fields or perhaps our advisory services in a variety of areas I want to take a take a moment to give a big thanks to to our Sponsors who make this project possible in this cycle that was also VRJ store and Wiley And I also want to thank our project advisors who have really contributed substantially to to the development of thematic areas for this survey cycle around which we wrote survey questions as well as contributing to To the interpretation of our subsequent analysis of findings So with that I'll just say a word or two about our agenda and then hand things over to to Jen So you've already heard a little bit of background information about the project Jen will then go through just a quick overview on methodology We'll spend the bulk of our time talking about the the key findings that you will see reflected in the report that again was just released today And then we should have about 15 minutes for Q&A at the end We will also be happy to stick around afterwards If anyone wants to chat with us One-on-one about the findings has any questions. We're also happy to answer follow-up questions via Via email after the after the session is concluded. So with that Jen handing handing this over to you Great. Thanks Christine So many of you are already very familiar with this project as a participant as a reader of our reports and so on For those of you who are less familiar The questionnaire includes topics such as how directors spend their time the constraints they face The strategies they use how libraries increase information discovery and how collections are developed This survey cycle we added coverage on three key topics equity diversity and inclusion strategies as well as the recruitment and hiring practices that directors use to achieve these strategies changes to collection strategies including how Directors are navigating the increased cost of journal packages and the library's role in ensuring student success outcomes We distributed the survey in October 2019 With invitations and reminders from members of our staff and our project advisor and recent ACRL president Trevor Dawes We closed the survey in December 2019 We had 662 total participants for an aggregated response rate of nearly 50% And we're so grateful for for all of our participants in this project. We definitely couldn't have done it without their engagement Looking further into the response rates as we've seen in previous cycles Our highest response rates were from directors at doctoral universities and our lowest response rates were from directors at baccalaureate colleges While we did have different response rates across groups. We did not weigh responses based on what groups people were a part of We also expanded our coverage of demographic variables in the current cycle and looking at these variables We see the the vast majority of participants were whites most were women 55 and older and have been at their current institution for five years or less So this gives you a general idea of who the average participant is in our sample so now I'm going to turn to the key findings in the library survey 2019 and As Christine mentioned earlier these findings are based on a snapshot in time based on responses Coming in late last year before the current pandemic and I'll discuss a few key findings that were have likely been impacted as we go through them Our first key finding is that library directors continue to perceive both their roles and the roles of the libraries As the declining in the eyes of their supervisors and other higher education leaders So and this and all of the following slides of the results You'll see the the question we asked in the survey on the left-hand side and a graph demonstrating the finding on the right-hand side So we asked library directors to indicate their agreement with three statements about how they think their direct supervisor and other senior leadership Proceeds the library director role as well as the library's role We've been tracking perceptions of the director role since 2013 and perceptions of the library the value of the library since the 2016 cycle And as you can see here slightly more than half of directors strongly agree that they and their direct supervisor Share the same vision for the library and slightly less than half strongly agree that they are considered part of their institution senior academic leadership However, only about 20% strongly agree that their college or university's library budget demonstrates that it recognizes the value of the library In each of these cases there has been a steady decline with fewer directors strongly agreeing in each survey cycle And although it's not shown here we found that these decreases are consistent across Carnegie classification So while directors at doctoral universities have more strongly agreed with each of these statements compared to masters and baccalaureate institution library directors All have seen decreases over time So next we look at the same items by Carnegie classification focusing solely on the current 2019 cycle In each case more respondents at doctoral universities strongly agree compared to baccalaureate college and masters institution directors Here the biggest differences are for the middle item and what's about two-thirds of doctoral university respondents strongly agree that they are considered part of their institutions leadership Compared to about half of masters institution respondents and about 30% of baccalaureate college respondents So what what you might take away from these findings is that while perceptions on all of these items are trending more negatively over time There does appear to be relatively more alignment between library and other leadership at doctoral universities and masters institutions Looking further into how library directors and their direct supervisors vision for the library is different We asked respondents how important different library functions are to them and to their direct supervisor In each case respondents believe the library function is more important to them rather than their direct supervisor The biggest gaps were for library supporting and facilitating faculty teaching activities The library serving as a repository of resources The library serving as a starting point for locating information for faculty research And the library supporting graduate students in conducting research managing data and publishing scholarship This gap has always existed at least as long as we've been surveying library directors But it has widened for many of these functions where library directors are consistent in their own views of these capacities But they believe that their supervisors have trended more negatively over time The next key finding is that student success remains a top objective for library directors And they see their library contributing most to increasing student learning and enhancing student well-being We asked library directors to indicate their agreement with a series of statements about student success Most of these items were first asked in the 2016 cycle But we added an additional item on targeted support for underserved student groups this cycle Across time there are no major differences But looking at the 2019 cycle We see there are a few differences in how directors responded to these items based on Carnegie classification The vast majority of directors from all institution types strongly agree that supporting student success is the most important priority for their library And their library collaborates closely with other units on campus to improve student success Shown here directors at doctoral universities generally agree less strongly with the first statement and more strongly with the second Compared to respondents at other institution types And I also want to draw your attention to another major difference here In the item second from the bottom, baccalaureate college respondents much more strongly agree that their library lacks the resources it needs to contribute to student success These findings suggest that library directors generally want to support student success But they see the process of doing so as a collaborative effort with others on campus And of course in order to contribute they need resources Further we asked how much of a priority different functions of the library are to directors These functions generally provide students with access to an informal learning environment, technology resources and course and learning materials Many of these items we have here have been included since our 2013 cycle We've also added more coverage on open education since then and an additional item about library space use These items displayed here are all focused on student success and are part of a larger list of functions that includes research support, data management and collections Three items stand out as the highest priorities across Carnegie classification Respondents most prioritize providing a physical space both for independent student learning and for student collaboration And providing reference instruction to undergraduate classes They prioritize providing and helping faculty create open educational resources and services for online or hybrid classes less However if we ask these items today rather than at the end of last year we would likely see differences in these responses as libraries have moved Many have moved online along with colleges and universities in general To summarize at the time of the data collection responded most highly prioritized providing a physical space for students and reference instruction to undergraduates Thus it's clear that the current pandemic is likely largely impacting some of the most important major functions of academic libraries Next we ask directors the extent to which their library contributes to different student success outcomes which are new items in the current cycle Displayed here are the aggregate results averaging across all participants Two-thirds of directors or more consider the library to contribute to increasing student learning and helping students develop a sense of community to a large extent Meanwhile about half believe the library largely contributes to more traditional student success outcomes such as increasing student retention and graduation rates And less than 20% believe that the library greatly impacts increasing student enrollment The only significant difference in responses by Carnegie classification was that a greater proportion of baccalaureate college respondents Consider the library to greatly contribute to increasing student learning compared to doctoral university respondents These findings suggest that libraries take a more holistic approach to student success in addition to caring about those more traditional outcomes Our next key finding is that relatively few library directors agree that their library as well as their broader institution have well developed strategies related to equity diversity inclusion and access We ask directors for the first time to indicate how well developed their strategies for equity diversity inclusion and accessibility work Here we see that about half of respondents feel that their library strategies are aligned with their institution strategies But only about a third strongly agree that their library and institution have well developed strategies to improve equity diversity inclusion and accessibility both for its employees and in their collections Respondents at doctoral universities however more strongly agree with most of these statements These results indicate that library directors perceive these as areas that can be improved and this also prompted us to ask respondents about their practices related to selection recruitment and hiring Which library directors report being greatly involved in themselves We also asked respondents about where they post job advertisements for the first time We gathered the list of items to be included through desk research utilizing the ALA's website section on equity diversity and inclusion, the Black Caucus of the ALA's website, and Reforma's website And we also received feedback on these items from advisors and during testing Here we see that the most common places library jobs are posted according to directors are on library association job boards or listservs and national higher education job boards or listservs And they also send job advertisements to colleagues or library and information schools Posting on library job boards or listservs for historically underserved populations is relatively less less common except in the case of doctoral universities And further almost no respondents reported that their library posts flyers and neighborhoods for historically underserved populations reside Again there are differences here by Carnegie classification with doctoral university respondents indicating that they or someone involved in hiring do most of these practices more frequently With the biggest the gaps being for posting on library job boards or listservs for historically underserved populations and posting directly on their library's website Of course where job advertisements are posted directly impacts who is likely to see and subsequently apply to these positions So we can see here that that job advertisements are most often posted to general online job boards and listservs or sent to colleagues Those who have access to online resources and also who have the connections are likely to see more library job advertisements Next we added items of cycle about more general recruitment hiring and selection practices Again these practices were selected based on desk research feedback from advisors as well as issues that I engaged with while conducting research as a graduate student at the University of Michigan Here we find that two practices stand out across Carnegie classification as common The majority of directors share that they that those involved in hiring include separate minimum requirements and provide preferred qualifications and job advertisements And they also use a structured interview script with each applicant for a position About two thirds of doctoral university respondents also indicated that their library requires parties involved in selection be formally trained on equity diversity inclusion and accessibility And less than half of masters and baccalaureate institution respondents say that they required this I also want to draw your attention to the item list the salary or salary range on the job advertisement which is the fourth from the bottom We find that this is not a particularly common practice with the third or less saying that their library does this We also looked at this item by public and private institution and we find that even at public institutions where salaries are often posted online for anyone to find Only a bit more than a third list of salary or salary range on advertisements At private institutions less than 15% lists salary or salary range Again these practices impact who is able to find and engage with job advertisements and in cases such as asking applicants for their accessibility accessibility needs for example Can signal how equitable and inclusive a library is So now we're going to move to the key findings that that may be the most impacted by the current pandemic either in a way that reverses what we found or in a way that accelerates what we found So our next key finding is that directors anticipate increased expenditures for services and staffing related to teaching and research support and decreases in collections expenditures are expected over the next five years So this is one area where we might see an acceleration of the finding today We updated our items on resource expenditure the survey cycle giving participants the opportunities to select if they anticipate expenditures will increase remain the same or decrease in the next five years Overall respondents most expect their expenditure in all areas to remain the same However when we look at specifically at the expected increases by Carnegie classification we do see some differences First in all cases respondents most expect to increase expenditures for services including services to support teaching and learning and services to support research They expect fewer increases in collection spending including rare special and other distinctive collections as well as general collections Instead they anticipate actually decreasing expenditure in these areas So Dr. World University respondents especially expect to increase spending on services to support research and also expect to increase expenditure on rare special and other distinctive collections more so than other directors These findings demonstrate that libraries value increasing services over collections perhaps to further contribute both the student success outcomes and to supporting research for faculty and students Since 2013 we asked library directors if they anticipate adding or reducing employee positions or making no change in a variety of areas Again we find that respondents most expect to keep employee positions the same and in the graph here we display the top 11 positions with the most expected increases And the remaining items will be displayed on the next slide The biggest anticipated increases are for instruction, instructional design and information literacy services, student success, engagement and outreach and specialized faculty research support And these top items are again related to service provisions rather than to collections However there are also differences in this by Carnegie classification most notably across the board, doctoral university respondents expect to add employee positions in almost all of these areas In fact for specialized faculty research support we see that three times more doctoral university respondents expect to add positions compared to baccalaureate college respondents And if you remember from the previous slide research services with an area that respondents at doctoral universities especially expected to increase expenditure While we don't show overtime analyses here we do find that generally there have been decreases in the proportion of respondents who expect to add positions And of course the ability to add positions is directly related to budget and we have already seen that library directors believe that their budget allocations do not adequately demonstrate the value of the library The remaining items are displayed here so in this bottom half of the list we find some items that relate to collections such as collections development and print preservation and collections management Further lending evidence that at least at the time of data collection library directors did not perceive this as an area that needs to be further developed And again we find that doctoral university respondents generally expect to see to increase employee positions more than other respondents particularly for marketing development and fundraising human resources and finance and business operations We also don't see as many decreases over time in these items as many of them started at low levels to begin with The next key finding is that directors are less interested in increasing financial support for technology systems and infrastructure but the biggest decreases coming from doctoral universities And again just as a reminder these results are from last fall and if we asked participants the following questions now it's likely that we would see major changes here 2013 we've asked the respondents to select their top three areas where they would allocate money if they received a 10% increase in their budget Given that a lack of financial resources is the biggest reported barrier to enacting change these areas represent the greatest priorities directors would like to address if this barrier was somewhat relieved Despite here are the top 10 areas selected by the most respondents There's a lot going on here with respondents most wanting to increase their budgets for new employee positions or redefined positions suggesting that more would increase employee positions if they had the budget for it We've also found that funds would be allocated to online or digital journal and databases and facilities expansions and renovations if respondents receive the budget increase I also want to draw your attention to one of the study decreases over time that for technology system and infrastructure which is near the black arrow on the screen Fewer directors have selected this as one of their top areas to use increases for in their budget since 2013 There were also a few differences across Carnegie classification Doctoral university respondents were more likely to select new employees or redefine positions similar to how they expected to to increase these positions more And publishing or scholarly communication initiatives Masters respondents selected employee travel and professional development and baccalaureate college respondents selected digital preservation more than others These results suggest that there are a variety of key areas in which libraries would benefit from more funding for But that in some areas such as technology there was a decrease need for additional funding but again these results are likely different today as more and more libraries are working remotely We also asked respondents about what their primary constraints are on their ability to make desired changes in the library since 2013 And by far the most commonly selected across all survey cycles was lack of financial resources All other constraints were chosen much less frequently There are a couple of decreases in the percentages of respondents who selected particular options But the most pronounced trend was for challenges and implementing new technologies which is again the item next to the black arrow Not shown here. We also find that doctoral directors choose lack of financial resources and differences of opinion with other college or university leadership Less so than others other respondents and baccalaureate college respondents choose labor regulations less than other respondents These findings continue to show that financial resources are most needed and that technology concerns at least at the time of data collection were seen as less constraining Next spending on electronic books now roughly equals that for print books Since the first survey cycle in 2010 we've asked respondents about the percentage of their library's materials budget is spent on different types of items Since then directors have spent the biggest proportion of their budget on online journals and databases and they've spent much less on all other items including print books, e-books and print journals Over time we find that they are spending a greater proportion on both types of online resources and a smaller percentage on print resources And if you look at the bottom red bars for print books and e-books we see for the first time there's an equal about equal spending on print books and e-books We've also asked directors since the first survey cycle to predict their spending in five in five years Since the 2016 cycle we've been able to compare their predictions with actual spending And as we've seen here their predictions have been largely accurate We've also included respondents predictions for 2024 here and given the accuracy of their previous predictions we can expect these to be fairly accurate as well So we can expect that library directors will continue to increase their percentage of spending on online journals and databases in comparison with other items Across Carnegie classification there are also a few differences in 2019 spending but doctoral university respondents spending an even greater proportion on online journals and databases And even less on print journals compared to other directors but baccalaureate respondents are spending more on print books compared to others These findings may indicate that baccalaureate college libraries are still building their physical collections more so than our others Our next key finding is that half of library directors are likely to cancel a major journal package in the next five years This survey cycle we added questions about journal licensing generally and specifically how likely directors think it is that they will cancel one or more major journal packages Overall about half believe they are very or extremely likely to cancel at least one major journal package And looking at Carnegie classification we see there's not much difference in the proportion of respondents who are likely to cancel a major journal subscription based on institution type Additionally we've asked respondents to indicate their agreement that the value of licensee resources is rising faster than cost since the 2016 cycle The percentage of respondents who strongly disagree has fallen almost 10 percentage points since 2016 with only 14% strongly agreeing in 2019 We also found few respondents strongly agree that when their journal licenses come up for renewal it's a high priority to bundle open access publishing fees along with subscription costs with only 20% strongly agreeing We asked all respondents to both those who did and didn't expect to cancel journal packages who they would want to discuss the possibility of cancelling journal packages with The three groups they consider most highly important to talk to are librarians, faculty and senior academic leadership outside of the library These first two groups are likely to be strongly impacted by cancellations as they either depend on access to such resources for their research or they will need to help constituents get access to resources Further respondents at doctoral universities generally consider it more important to talk to a wide variety of people before cancelling journal packages Our final key finding is that roughly half of library directors are interested in contributing to institutional learning analytics tools and about half are also concerned about third party vendors having access to individual level data We asked respondents for the first time this cycle how much they agree that they are interested in their library contributing to learning analytics tools And that they are concerned about the extent to which third party vendors have access to individual level data from library users And here we display the findings by Carnegie classification About half agree with each of these statements but in both cases doctoral university respondents indicated the highest level of agreement And not displayed here we also asked how much library directors agree that presenting data on the contributions or impact of the library on college or university objectives is a compelling way to advocate for additional resources for the library Although library directors reported more holistic views of student success as we saw earlier compared to their colleges and universities About two thirds of directors strongly agree with this statement so they acknowledge that even if their objectives are more holistic it is important to address the more traditional objectives and outcomes when advocating for resources Picking together these results suggest that library directors recognize the need for accurate data and many are interested in providing that data But there still remain some concerns about protecting the anonymity and confidentiality of communities at their institution We added questions this cycle about what types of data most effectively demonstrate the contributions or impact of the library when shared with other senior academic leadership Respondents were able to select up to three types of data and presented here is the aggregate data from 2019 About two thirds selected feedback from users. This was by far the most selected item here The next most selected were utilization data which includes store counts and download counts and library contributions toward institutional outcomes with about half selecting each compelling anecdotes institutional or peer comparisons and increases in efficiency and productivity were selected by even fewer respondents From this we gain insight into the data collection and analytics priorities of library directors and we find that they prioritize the experience and perspectives of their users And that when it comes to institutional outcomes perhaps they are considering that the library is one part of a bigger picture So with that I'll open the floor up to questions That was great. Thank you so much for that wonderful presentation and hello everyone. I just want to introduce myself. I'm Diane Goldenberg Hart from CNI Welcome everyone to this webinar. We're so glad that you could join us and be here for this really exciting kickoff to our project briefings for this meeting And with that we are opening the floor for questions If you look down at the bottom of your screen you should see a little Q&A box and if you click on it you should be able to input your questions into that box And we also have some questions coming in via chat. So I'll go ahead and start with those Let's see. So One question is from the last item were respondents able to select multiple data points or were they limited For this one I believe So is that Is that what you're looking at? Yes, okay Yeah, they were allowed to select up to three items So they could select none they could select one two or three so once they got to three they couldn't select anymore Okay, thank you Let's see we have we have several We have a Oh here we go. All right, so Steven Steven Bell is asking Is there any detail on what those resources are that are being considered for student success staff collections Co-location with other academic support services collaboration with faculty etc Thanks, Steven Yeah, I'll maybe jump in with a couple of points. So so I think it's it's some combination of all of the above and what it looks like for a particular institution will obviously be different than what it looks like for for another institution. We do see that Spaces and services are often identified as being being the most impactful I would say Collections tend to lag a little bit when it comes to supporting student learning obviously you know faculty research is a whole a whole different thing There was there was one finding that I want to want to mention here we asked a number of questions obviously that are not presented here today. There was one item that we had library directors react to even about the value of The value of library and plays and connecting students with other kinds of resources on campus from other offices on campus and we saw, you know, tremendous value indicated in that too. So I think it's, you know, some combination of all of the above Steven to the to the different different options that you mentioned and there are even some some things beyond that Great. Thank you. Thanks so much, Christine. All right, we have a question now from Lisa Hinch left and she writes understandably this analysis so far focuses most on the current data collection. Have you had a chance to begin comparing with past your surveys, you're with your past surveys and have there been any noticeable notable differences. Yeah, Jen, do you want to do you want to speak a little bit methodologically to what kinds of comparisons are and are not permitted with the kind of over time over time findings that we look at. Yeah, so we, because we keep the data confidential for each survey cycle, we can't actually do statistical analyses over time, because we can't connect the data from one year to the next by participants. So we didn't actually run any statistical analyses over time. So anything that we talked about over time was, was where we noticed there were some bigger differences. But just keep in mind that we don't know that these are the same people responding every time. In many cases, there are new directors at the same institution. So yeah, we can't necessarily say that the same people are responding differently. But I mean, Lisa to your to your question about what's been been the most notable increases or declines, probably pointing towards the first the first finding around the value of the role of the library and the role of the library director has been meaningfully different over time same thing with investments in in technology. Great. Okay, thank you. We've got some time for a few more questions if anybody has any please feel free to type them in the Q&A box. I also have the opportunity with this tool to allow our attendees to engage directly with our presenters. If you would like to ask a question live or make a comment. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand and I can move you into speaking mode so that you can engage directly with Christine and Jennifer about these issues. So I look I'm looking now I see we have another question from Steven Bell. Okay, so Steven asks on your question about barriers to change. We see that staff to changes less mentioned as a factor by less than 20% of respondents, given the level of library literature and discussion about the problem of staff resistant to change and the need for better change management. Perhaps we are overestimating just how much staff resistance is as a factor probably no exact answer on that just an interesting observation based on the survey. Would you like to comment on that. Yeah, I know I think that's I think that's a great observation and just thinking towards so so I mentioned at the outset and maybe some folks weren't on yet so I'll just repeat it. Based on on what's going on in the world going on in higher education going on with with academic libraries specifically we are planning on conducting another survey of library directors later this year probably in the summer fall. One of the things that's really, really, you know, notable about what's going on right now is that libraries are having to really reinvent their their offerings in a new way so so libraries have been relatively more well well positioned to pivot pivot services online given all of the work that's happened over the past number number of decades to do so. But, you know, some of the work that that Lisa Hinchliff and I have been doing maps out what's going on with physical library buildings what's going on with with services what's going on with staffing and and in particular to what extent our staff able to to work remotely so this is a really interesting one where maybe we're not going to ask about it exactly in the same way later this year but there's a lot of change that is is not going to be optional. That is is taking place now is going to continue to take place later this year so you know appreciate you you drawing our attention to to that item I think that's that's going to be a really important thing to keep an eye on. That will be fascinating indeed really looking forward to to that. I am jotting I am jotting it down right now. All right, looks like we've got. Well, Stephen first of all says helpful to know this thanks for your response but we have another question in our chat from Rebecca Blake it's done. She says I'm curious to hear more about the questions related to inclusive interview and hiring processes and where those came from are those items coming from a set of formal best practices that live somewhere for example, screen reader checking of position descriptions asking for pronouns provider providing salary information. Yeah, so these items there wasn't like a list of items that we just took from from somewhere we compiled this list from from desk research and I'm just bringing up my slide notes so I can. So, so basically the fees come from some of the work is some of this is from work that I've done previously with at the University of Michigan so I did my dissertation for example on disability and so accessibility has been on my mind a lot. And you know one thing that I had to do when I was doing that project was make sure that my my survey was accessible to screen readers so so that's like for example where that item came from. And we've also got in feedback from from advisors, the University of Michigan also has a program called advanced which I did work with. So, they do trainings on things like requiring parties to be formally trained on on equity diversity inclusion and accessibility, for example. So, so these came from a wide variety of places there wasn't one one single source that they came from. Excellent. Very, very interesting. Thank you for that answer and thanks for that question. All right, we definitely have a little more time here if anybody has more questions. Just as a reminder. There is live tweeting going on about this project briefing and the whole meeting. Our hashtag is hashtag CNI 20 s that is hashtag CNI to zero s we hope that you will continue to engage there and elsewhere about this project briefing are great plenary sessions and we have many many more project briefings that come throughout the next two months. Yes, it's true, two full months of project briefings from CNI. We have also had a question about can the slides or the recording be shared internally yes absolutely please do. You will share all of our resources that we make live and openly available on the CNI website CNI.org. We also make the videos available freely openly on our YouTube and Vimeo channels, and we hope you will share this widely with your networks and with your staff and beyond. And we are trying to get our the videos of these out quickly we're working on that right now. And yes we understand that everyone is working at warp speed right now. There's a lot to be done, and we can all use a little support. We just want to thank you all for continuing to engage with us sharing your feedback with us about how this venue is working for you, and what what more we can do to help support you through this time. I don't see any more questions and again I invite you to raise your hands if you would like to engage directly. Christine and Jennifer would be happy to speak with you. There I see Christine has shared it's just me. That's the link to the full report so thanks for that we'll put that on your project briefing page as well Christine so you can visit CNI.org visit the the meeting page. Go to the project briefing page and you'll find a link to the slides a link to the report and when the video is ready we will will embedded on that page as well. So I'm hearing some virtual applause coming through as Clifford commented at the plenary is that's the downside of doing this virtually we don't get to hear that. Lovely applause and a real time thank you from our audience but we know how much they appreciate your time your effort, these fascinating findings and thank you so much for sharing them. Thank you for being at CNI and being part of our program and with that I will close out this webinar and I hope to see everyone back again for our for our next one. Thanks everyone so much for for coming today thanks Diane Cliff for for hosting us if you do have any questions feel free to, you know, tweet at us email us, whatever variety of communication you you prefer we're always happy to help unpack the findings a little bit more get you an underlying table of a graph, you know, however we can be can be helpful in getting this information out there. Many thanks. Thanks, Cliff. Thank you. Be well everyone.