 All right, I think it's about time to get started. This is our final project briefing for day two of the virtual event at the CNI fall 2021 member meeting. And this will be a panel joint panel from the US and Canada representing some joint work that has been going on between in the in the ARL and Carl context, looking at institutional strategies and policies for dealing with research data. This is a, you know, major source of investment and a major challenge for libraries, every research libraries everywhere and it's interesting to me to see the similarities and variations between the approaches that different institutions are taking. We have an all star group of panelists and I'm not going to introduce them all because I believe the next slide is a slide listing all the panelists and their affiliations. So I'm going to just hand it off to our panel, say welcome. Thank you for being here with us and I'm really looking forward to what you all are going to tell us. Thank you, Cliff. And thanks everyone for joining us this afternoon. My name is Jenny Mullen Berg and as Cliff mentioned I'll advance the slide here I will be introducing our panelists just real briefly and then as each one of them speaks they will reintroduce themselves. And a little bit about where they're from. We have Donna born Tyson from Dalhousie Abigail gobin from the University of Illinois Chicago, Jim will dim bush from Minnesota and then me from the University of Washington. The three first panelists will be discussing issues around policy and strategy development and research data services and their institutions. And then I'll mention a little bit about the ARL report that kind of brought ARL and Carl together earlier this year. What we're going to be hearing are some of the experiences and lessons learned, lessons learned, excuse me, when adopting and implementing institution wide policies and strategies. Some of the use cases that our three panelists bring and then some more information about the framework for research data services out of the ARL Carl report. So with that, I will just kick it right off to Donna born Tyson. Thanks very much, Jenny, can I have the next slide please. So, yeah, Donna born Tyson Dean of Libraries, I was pleased to be a member of the ARL Carl RDM committee, and I'm speaking to you from Dalhousie University. Dalhousie University is located in Magma, the ancestral and unseated territory of the Magma, we are all treaty people. I would like to very briefly cover how institutional RDM strategies have been mandated by federal funding agencies in Canada, and how strategy development is being enabled by a national RDM network of experts, and how the spectrum of services and activities from national to local is being considered in an institutional strategy. Next slide please Jenny. So the try agency. Oh, sorry. The try agency in Canada, the funding agency is really three agencies combined for health, natural sciences and engineering, and social sciences and humanities, known as the try agencies. And next slide please. Yep. The RDM policy which was issued by the try agency is the second step after the earlier open access policy was established in 2016. So the data management policy was promised and discussed over a period of five years with the library community and others. The try agency RDM policy was eagerly awaited by the RDM community as something that would draw attention to the benefits of RDM and the services offered at our universities. There are three requirements in the policy to create an institutional strategy for researchers to create data management plans and for researchers to deposit their data. The try agency policies requires an institutional strategy rather than an institutional policy, but it is acknowledged that there are governance issues that could be considered in an institutional data policy as an additional step. And Jim will have more to say about that later. Next slide please. So for over a decade, research data management had been worked on locally in Canadian research libraries, and also at the national level led by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries. Carl started developing portage in 2013, a network of RDM experts, and a national suite of services and infrastructure was support from librarians across the country. The librarians have been developing this national network while creating capacity at their own institution as well by lending support to the national effort there has been an effective coordination and much less reinventing of the wheel. RDM capacity in smaller institutions has been easier to develop as well drawing on the shared expertise. Next slide please. So the process of setting up a national digital research infrastructure organization called the digital research Alliance of Canada, or the Alliance for short. RDM advanced research computing and research software are the three pillars of the Alliance. Next slide please. Before the creation of the Alliance responsibility for delivering Canada's DRI research infrastructure ecosystem ecosystem had evolved to be a highly distributed endeavor with many actors across multiple delivery layers and no formal mechanism to ensure coordination and planning. The government of Canada saw the value of consolidating related services and organizations, and along with other national organizations portage has been merged into the Alliance during 2021. Researchers have expressed a desire for wrote a robust national DRI, but not at the expense of the funding available to them as researchers. This has been top of mind for everyone involved. Next slide please. There are still several layers of national and regional cooperation, including Carl and the four regional academic library consortia and organizations in the DRI such as canary. But additional organizations including compute Canada and research data Canada are now being merged into the Alliance as well. This strong national coordination combined with the regional consortia and a growing number of RDM specialists in each university ensures that no one is reinventing the wheel at the local level and activities are taking place at the right level to meet researcher needs. Next slide please. The RDM coordination name has changed from portage to the Alliance but the focus remains on creating researcher focus capacity at scale. And this includes over 150 experts at each university library, and then a core RDM team of staff with the Alliance infrastructure and programs, tools, services and policies and training and outreach and that training and outreach and actually everything is available directly to a researcher or through their RDM librarian. The expert groups, oh sorry. Yep, perfect. The expert groups offer services platforms training and standards around the entire research data lifecycle, and these all factor into the development of an institutional RDM strategy. And they should be the first consideration for developing something at the local level. Next please. Several of the portage expert groups have created services or infrastructure that specifically meet the requirements of this tri agency RDM policy. They are provided into institution facing and researcher facing requirements for the requirement for an RDM strategy. There's a template to assist the university in the development of the strategy. This was co developed by portage the tri agency and other agencies in the DRI. For the researchers for the requirement file a data management plan. There is a national DMP assistant a bilingual online tool it walks researchers through the creation of the plan. There are two researchers and various discipline specific templates available. Also for the researchers for their prior to deposit their data there are two repository options available nationally, at no cost to the researcher and also guidelines on disciplinary and institutional repository options. Next slide please. There's also support for institutional strategy development being provided in terms of workshops by the Alliance. Next please. And one of the things they're advising is that there's a university wide team together key participants. In most universities this team is being led by the library, often in partnership with the research office and including the IT group, the ethics board and of course researchers. Next please. So there are sort of phases outlined towards the development of the strategy, starting with an assessment of the current state of RDM. Next slide please. And the tool has been developed by portage in the Alliance maturity assessment model that supports this assessment of institutional capacity. Are there RDM librarians or the storage and preservation infrastructure and tool options. What are the relationships with the research office IT and ethics, and a consideration of relevant policies and university systems. Next slide please. At Dell housing we had the privilege to test drive the portage trade agency template for the institutional strategy when it was in a draft stage, and our strategy was proven late 2011 team well ahead of 2023 compliance required. And Dell's fantastic RDM team has continued to refine our strategy to further develop aspects that were not originally given full consideration. Next slide please. We included more consideration of the fair and care principles, care principles for indigenous data governance articulated by the global indigenous data Alliance. And now we're considering and receiving training in the first nations principles of OCCAP from the first nations information governance center. Next slide please. These OCCAP principles of ownership control access and possession, don't always align with the fair principles of open. And OCCAP principles must be given precedence working with the local indigenous research community. We also have advice from the government of Canada on other ways to decolonize research which we are folding into our institutional strategy. Our strategy will always be an iterative process where we're assessing what researchers need to support the management of your data. And now I'm turning things over to advocate. Okay, thank you Donna. So I'm going to take this a little bit different direction rather than talking about very much the large scale and the big picture that Donna's given us for all of Canada I'm going to talk very personally about what I'm seeing here at UIC and how that's a little different in the United States. So, thinking about this and as I was getting ready to tackle this I was that was thinking about like walking into a restaurant with someone ask you how big is your data party. Next slide please. And also I'm the data management librarian at UIC and I'm also a data policy advisor for our office of research so I hold joint positions within the university. When we're talking about identifying policies needs and librarian models and how do we get people involved and how do we engage with all of this. It's something I've been looking at for a long time and so I have research on all of these areas for you to build upon. First, about five years ago a team and I looked at institutional data policies what's available and my understanding is that we actually haven't changed all that much I know UIC does not have its own research data policy yet. There have been some new ones there are some others that were in our paper that are continuing to emerge and evolve, but that paper can give you a quick idea of where institutional policies are what the best ones we thought were and how you can build on those rather than having to reinvent. Another thing that we've seen quite a lot of is curiosity about researcher needs. And in 2019, we looked at 35 needs assessments on faculty and what their, what their needs were surrounding research data management. It will probably come as absolutely no surprise to this particular group that the primary need that they identified with storage. There's a lot of other needs though that we can, we can get to and seeing that at scale, it helps you to understand that everyone is really working on a lot of these same issues, faculty have crossed the border are pretty homogenous and what they're asking for. And then more recently, I had the opportunity of the last four years I built and ran the ACRL RDM road shows with Megan Sap Nelson and an amazing team. And one of the things that Megan and I saw were these different models that our institutions were using to engage liaison and subject librarians in data management and research data services so we've articulated what these models might look like at your institution. So you'll find things that may look familiar or if you are just getting more involved with data management or you're trying to figure out a different model. We've articulated those for you. Next slide please. So what does that look like at you I see as with many institutions, data management and data services falls to kind of under that tripartite group of University Library, it and the various offices that are aligned with that and then our office of research. And for us specifically, the University Library in the Office of Research will that's, that's me. There are certainly other colleagues that I work with on campus, but I have those titles that is my primary job responsibility. I'm also liaison librarian. And then we also have our information technology leadership council. There is a research committee specifically there. And that group really advocates for the research needs and has a very heavy data focus, we're trying to advocate for the storage needs for the high performance computing needs. It is a governance group and an advisory group. We gather information it's really neat because it draws together all of these people from a variety of colleges and experiences. There's a lot in terms of education, we do workshops. I teach a full data course in the spring we're going to be working on an NIH data management plan sample library. We respond to a lot of RFIs I just turned in one last week about data to the NIH so there are a lot of RFIs coming out and it's really essential for us to keep reporting on this. We're going to figure out how do we identify resources that we have in need and working on a data policy development for campus, which is so hard with all the disciplines that we have. Next slide please. And the thing that's going to be taking up my next year is this new NIH data management and sharing policy. This came out about a year ago, and introduces that two page data management plan into all of the grants. This will start next year in January of 2023 sorry year year plus, and it really changes the culture because we're moving from data should be shared. It is nice if you share you should share to data must be shared. And specifically as soon as possible, and no later than the time of an associated publication, or the end of a performance period, whichever comes first. This is an enormous cultural change. We have so many things to tackle and you I see is a huge week. We get a lot of NIH funding. So trying to make sure our researchers are prepared. This is what I this is what I am doing. Next slide. So how do I do that. So last spring I went on what I called the awareness tour. I started at administrative as high as I could go and worked my way down. And I was like hi, hi, here's a new policy. Surprise. I'll be back and just made sure people knew about it. I didn't want this to come as a surprise. I start that second awareness tour with our faculty next spring, I'm doing a couple this December and but mostly next spring. I don't want them to hear it over and over again. I don't want this to be a surprise when they hit those fall grants and that fall grant cycle. To that end we built a campus task force which is offices of research and various people from college it departments are research technology group or clinical translational center. We focused on how do we do this in a way that preserves human subject protection. There is specifically in the policy requirements that we observe indigenous data protection, speaking back to Donna's focus on what they're doing with the care principles. And we have to prioritize this it is in the policy, and then also with AI and machine learning. There's so many new and emergent re identification risks, and I don't know how we tackle all of those but we are trying as a campus to make sure that we look at those and consider those holistically now in advance of data sharing. Next slide. And now I will turn it over to Jim. My name is Jim Wilkenbush, and I direct research computing at the University of Minnesota and research computing includes the Minnesota Super computing Institute, the University of Minnesota Informatics Institute and a unit called use the report directly to the vice president for research, although I work very closely with our libraries here on campus in the system in general. And so the attack that I'm going to take in terms of just giving a bit of an overview is to describe really how the joint task force report fits into a broader vision, where really we are looking at ways to view data more as an asset, as an asset to a liability, and I'll explain more about what I mean when I talk about data as a as a liability, specifically. Next slide. So, all of this that I'm about ready to describe is drawing heavily from a practices and experience and advanced research computing paper, which is cited here. But it also includes a number of updates since this is about two years old and as as our panelists already mentioned things are always in need of being updated. Next slide. So, among the things that you've heard already about this particular framework is that it's very practical. In fact, there are a number of very specific recommendations with examples that you can look to to see how your institution might be able to take advantage of this report. This is extremely handy and this will certainly I think help you see why we've gone where we went and why we're going in the direction that we're going. Next slide. So, the, again, the larger vision is to shift this paradigm from talking about data as a liability to realizing data as an asset and, and part of that is sort of recognizing that in the role that I play very often amongst technologists. We spend a great deal of time talking about the liability side of the equation. For example, the cost of allocating storage the cost of storage itself and the cost of protecting storage. The real shift should be, and what what we're trying to achieve here at the University of Minnesota is to not lose sight of the fact that data are also tremendous asset. This to all of you here hopefully it does, but to really bringing voice to that is is what we're aiming to do, because of course it promotes public private collaboration that helps in recruiting faculty and students. There are economies of scales that can be achieved. And certainly it increases our capacity to do high quality research. Next slide. So, I'm not naive though the challenges are real as all of you know, the breadth of research data is enormous includes, you know socio economic data and spreadsheets to, you know, very large sets of data that try to describe stellar evolution. Some of these data sets are in fact large it's fairly common to see data sets over 100 terabytes and, and even to see multi petabyte data sets that need to be preserved in some way. The use agreements are certainly onerous and are not getting any easier to navigate. And our academic institutions are complex. There are many organizations on campus that are involved in in some way in the data management process and I'll touch upon a few of those as we go forward. Next slide. So, when we started doing this work really we identified this was this was really in 2015 so as prior to this report and we identified for key ingredients to realizing data as an asset and the first was that there needed to be some sort of sustained research computing infrastructure research infrastructure. We needed to have well trained cyber infrastructure professionals. Sometimes these are called cyber practitioners in my community. We needed to have good data governance that spans institutional reporting lines, and that really sort of fill that that middle if you will, and we needed to have good tools to make data interoperable and to facilitate analysis and sharing of these data. Next slide. I'm just going to look at one element of this really quickly in the last couple of slides, and that is really the good governance because I think it, we've really been helped by the task force report that you were just that you that we're talking about today. And I think you know one thing that I just want to say is that everyone at the University of Minnesota was motivated by the reality that if we didn't do something. People are resourceful. They'll find a way to do things and the ways that they find to do things will vary between not particularly elegant to potentially dangerous and in various ways or risky with respect to the institution. Next slide. All right, so the reality that we faced is that, you know, from a top down approach where we're really looking for strategic alignment and so forth the reality is far as many of our data users and data generators is that could slow things down. And, and from the sort of bottom up approach from the researchers is that really they're interested in time to solution and the solutions that come to bear might actually lack broader alignment with our strategic goals and so. Next slide. So we really came up with and this is this is an iterative process if you read our paper you'll see that these this middle looks a little bit differently we've refined it to include two groups. The first group is what we call our institutional cyber infrastructure group. It involves people who directly report up to the vice president to their respective VPs, and I'll show you who those are in a moment, and then really more of a sort of boots on the ground group and these are the people who are working directly with the researchers. Next slide. And so the charge of this group really could be summarized as to coordinate various research cyber infrastructure initiatives across the system. The members of this group, as you've heard in the previous talks it's important to build effective coalitions they include research computing or the OB PR, our central it group, our academic health center, and our libraries those are the core. What we call our owners or members of the ISIC. Next slide. So it implies that this group also doesn't operate in a vacuum. We were really initiated with the idea of engagement and so just like within your own institution, you have various groups to engage with and they have already policies and ideas about what needs to be done and so we've actively engaged with these groups. Importantly, I think this approach has allowed us to speak more effectively also with external organizations, both in terms of describing what it is that we're doing where we're doing is when I speak about the University of Minnesota I could speak in a more coherent fashion. And then also to sort of take that advice and make sure that it enters our institution in an effective way that can affect change. Next slide. And so, just quickly back to those recommendations where are we. Next slide. We're, we're getting there. Specifically what I tried to do here is map some approaches that we've taken and some results that we've observed to the specific recommendations. So this top four seem to be very good starting places. That said, these highlighted in sort of orange and red are ones that we certainly want to get to and actually are putting those on our roadmap now. And that's all I have looking forward to, to questions here's some resources if you wanted to sort of dive a little bit further into what we're doing. Thanks. Thank you everybody. I am again Jenny Milenberg and I'm research data services librarian at the University of Washington in Seattle and I'm also an ARL visiting program officer for research data. So I'm just going to kind of illustrate and put an exclamation point on what the speakers have talked about today. In late 2019 ARL and Carl formed a joint task force on research data services, which had the following three goals, which I won't read to you but the goal of the group was really to have a selection of deans and directors, as well as data practitioners, data librarians, etc, working together to try to come up with some some of the ways that research libraries help steward information. As well as coming up with some support structures and some frameworks for how people can go ahead and not only implement research data services, as you see as we talked about today but the policies and strategies that institutions are using. So we tried to create some guidance and reference work for research data libraries to use. So there are there's, I'm going to go back actually so you accept it's not going back. There we go. There's a link there to the actual page on the ARL site that links to the, the report that we have produced. There were also three working groups, the one that dealt with institutional strategies, much of their information was put into the final report itself but there were two other groups that have forthcoming separate research outputs that are coming our way. So one is on the policy working group is from the policy working group and this is the work they did kind of collected a history of policy and the US and Canada, and provided an overview of current policies, and then the goal for institutions and librarians was to come up with a list of recommendations when instituting policy and strategy development and implementation. So to do that we looked at examples of current policies, we included exemplars of library involvement when librarians or libraries had been involved with developing policies and strategies at the institutional level. We've included information about exemplar policies, and then some of the selected policies strategies and principles that drive current practice whether that comes from government layer or you know, a federal state layer or it's an institutional policy layer. So as you saw with each of these speakers partnerships and having strong relationships with stakeholders is critical to having research data services at an institution. And so this particular partners that partnerships and stakeholders working group looked at the types of partnerships that exist in providing research data services. I think each one of the three speakers just really highlighted the types of internal and external collaborations that become essential to this kind of not just the institutional strategy and policy development but they actual implementation of services for an institution. This group also looked at the whys of partnerships which help define what what the goals of a partnership is for, whether it's going to be formal or a more informal basis. They included information about assessment tools, as well as a lifecycle for partnerships, and what partnerships need to succeed. There was also some information about the catalog of partnerships if you will it's all of this is to help people figure out when developing institutional strategies and institutional data services, how to best go about doing them. So some of the next steps and horizon issues for this particular ARL and Carl research data services test for us, and then and beyond that particular group is continued engagement between ARL and Carl on the role of research libraries and I should have said first that the bolder things that we've actually done already so we've already convened members to talk about some of the NIST standards and their research data services framework, building upon the AAU and APLU a part work is another one. So working on investigating the open by design approach with regard to indigenous data and community expectations you saw Donna in particular talk about how that's working in Canada. And it's definitely has has a lot of traction and other institutions as well as in the United States, and with some of the individual societies like research data Alliance, and I assist etc. The work that we're doing is examining costs related to public deposit of NSF research there are always conversations going on about that. As Abigail mentioned storage is always huge and issues around storage are constantly moving target. And then also working with disciplinary societies and repositories on coordinating research data services is something we're working on now. And then the last is to hold some more discussions on emerging areas that affect research data services at the institutional level. So we wanted to make sure to leave. We wanted to make sure to leave time for questions I want to thank all three of the panelists for helping explain their situation and how things are going at their institution, and I will mute myself and take a look at the chat. The next question in the chat is I'm hoping the panel can reflect upon if you all worked with campus administration for contracts and grants, how you engage with those folks for research proposal planning development submission and approval and for award acceptance set off set up and kick off. It wasn't off topic but it's something we're looking at at UCLA. Panelists, does anyone want to address that directly. Well, from a high level. I think one thing that is maybe germane to other institutions as well are sort of compliance, things that are governed by compliance where a funder for perhaps requires. a client sort of rating and cmc right now in the US for defense research in particular is one area that we've been focusing on and really requires administrative buy in to to do effectively and so we have, we have certainly engaged across various administrative projects at a very high level to come up with an approach actually to to implement proposals from from the very, you know, moment of development all the way through to acceptance enclosure, and if you're familiar with the cybersecurity maturity model certification process. I will appreciate that it really does demand that degree of coordination and fortunately we had this group, the Isaac group in place prior to that really becoming a new thing and I think we were able to effectively assemble the right parties to to address some emerging opportunities. Let's take things down to a very practical level after Jim's wonderful high level answer. We were one of the mandatory tick boxes on the research office tick list for researchers before they're able to submit their proposals to the committee for funding. It's a list of things they have to have done without shall see the research ethics board etc. And so one of the tick boxes is, do you have a data management plan or have you talked to the RDM librarian. And that has to be done before they can proceed. So we're kind of in between. I'm not a tick box yet mostly because there's not enough of me. But we're kind of in between in that where I'm aiming is at the people that are actually doing that work. I think education and training, just as much or as more than our researchers do and I think they're often missed in who needs rates, who needs education who needs support who needs checklists who needs resources. So I've been tasked with targeting those groups and making sure that they have support because they can get researchers, then they can do handoff to me or we can make sure that we're connecting people in the best way we're really trying to work on networks and partnerships. Thank you. So there are any other questions go ahead and put those in the chat, but one of the questions that we would I'm interested in, and we talked about this a little bit, but what mechanisms do you have at your university to encourage information sharing around these issues related to data policies and strategies. I think this is key and it kind of gets to the issue of partnerships and collaboration. I can start on this one. So there's the two different committees that I mentioned in my presentation one was the our information technology governance group, which sees it people from across campus that's one easy and frequent place I see them once month no matter what. Next week I will see the data committee now that task force is very much focused on the NIH data management policy it's so big it affects us so much. We have us, we have that targeted task force but what it has evolved into a little bit is making sure we're getting that relationship sharing. And I think there's a real hunger for that there's people who've been kind of isolated and am I the only one doing this the same that all of these needs needs assessments at different institutions on our own campuses we see a lot of people who are isolated they feel like they're alone and being able to say hey here's a place come together and talk about this has really helped with information sharing. But created a digital strategy for delhousie and part of that one of the biggest recommendations in the strategy is to overhaul the information governance for whole university, because there are three or four fairly effective tables right now but they're not really linked or, you know, it wasn't constructed from the outset to work as a governance structure. So, that's something that we hope to do in the next year. And when we when we envisioned our institutional cyber infrastructure group and our research cyber infrastructure champions. We really had in mind the fact that some, you know, we needed to meet people where they were, and, you know, there are researchers and and staff who will will really do a great deal of work, searching on the web to figure out what the right person is to to talk to and so forth and that are others who who will not look at the digital resources available online and just want to speak with the technical person within their unit and and so that's where we sort of came up with this dual strategy of trying to really get a network of individuals and this is the research cyber infrastructure champion network across all of our campuses so that wherever someone went, they would quickly come to information that would be, you know, more perhaps impactful to research either in terms of finding the resource they need to do their research, or if there's a policy issue quickly get to the policy that's relevant. Thank you everyone. And I, I've lost track of our time but I think we're just about at time. So I will pause there and see if there's any other questions from the attendees or from cliff. Okay, thank you to our panelists. I don't see any more questions from attendees. So, I will just thank you all for a great panel that that that change that NIH is putting in place I think is going to be, as you say, a really big deal and I, I'm very appreciated. I'm very much appreciated you highlighting that in case there are folks who don't have that on their radar screen yet. Thank you all so much for joining us today, and for sharing your thinking on this. Thank you all for joining us for the event. I wish you all a good afternoon or evening, wherever you may be. I look forward to seeing you at one Eastern tomorrow for a closing invited session where we're going to talk about how scholarly societies are thinking about the future of meetings, virtual, real and mixed. So, with that, I thank our speakers, all of our speakers for today. All of our presenters, and I wish you a good evening. Thanks.