 Welcome to the CNI Digital Scholarship Planning webinar series. I hope you're all doing well during this difficult time of the pandemic. We're so pleased to have over 250 registrants from five countries and a wide variety of institutions. I'm Joan Lippincott, Associate Executive Director Emerita of CNI, and I will be moderating the nine sessions of the series. Each of you is registered for all nine sessions. Don't worry if you need to skip some, we will have recordings available for all sessions, as well as a set of questions to guide planning discussions on your own campus. We have two speakers for this session and we will take questions after each. Please type your questions in the chat box at any time. In addition, after the formal one-hour session is over, we will open the mics in case some of you wish to verbally ask questions of the speakers. The chat box is also available to communicate with each other, or with me, or our technical lead, Beth Sechrist. During the presentations, all participants will be muted. For this first session, I would like you all to think about how you respond when someone asks, why should a library or library IT organization be involved in digital scholarship? Whether the person who asks is an academic administrator, faculty member, or other librarian. Here to help give voice to making that case are Harriet Hamasi, Dean of the Library at Georgetown University, and past host and planner of an ARL-CNI Digital Scholarship Workshop, and Keith Webster, Dean of University Libraries and Director of Emerging and Integrative Media Initiatives at Carnegie Mellon University. Their bios are on the webinar site, and I won't take any more time with introductions in order to give our speakers more time. So over to you, Harriet. And Harriet's going to bring up her slides. Thank you, Joan. It's great to be here with you and others, and I am particularly pleased to see so many colleagues who I currently work with and have previously worked with on today's session. As we consider the current and future state of digital scholarship, we are reminded that scholars throughout the ages have used whatever devices were available to them to communicate their reflections and findings, to ask questions, and to invite the engagement of readers. I think I must not have brought up my real slides. I'm going to stop just for a second and try this one more time. Now let me try again. Oh, there we go. I apologize. Let's take a quick look at some early examples of scholarly practice. Harriet, now the slides are not showing. They were showing before. Aha. Okay. This is, yes, this is an issue that I've had in the past and I apologize. So let's see. Can you see it now? Yes. Great. Okay. Now I am going to make it full. I hope full screen. I suppose it is now. Can you see? Yes. Great. So let's take a look, some early examples of scholarly practices that are still employed perhaps in different ways today. Search and discovery as through the encyclopedia from 1503. Gregory Reich, a German monk brought together for the first time. The subjects considered mandatory for an educated man of the 16th century. Annotating as in this early manuscript which reveals the reactions and additions of other scholars to the original authors findings. We observe the practice of layering and comparing objects or facts to establish relationships within an article, or in this case, a map. Visuals to enhance the meaning of text. Collaborative writing as in the four scholars response to the excerpt from Horace. We see the author's attempt to allow readers to engage with content. This multimedia text from 1618 demonstrates how the author's arguments and evidence and conclusions drew on interdisciplinary connections. And here an example from 1858 of using data as narrative. This map shows the names and approximate sizes and locations of slave plantations along the lower Mississippi River. The scholars have been refining their practices, cultures and attitudes about scholarship for centuries. A quick look at some of the well documented differences between scientists and humanists give insight into the evolution of digital scholarship and the changing roles of libraries. They are the most commonly working groups and are immersed in what happens in their laboratory today. Their interest is in new discoveries and turning facts into theories that solve real problems. From successful large scale enterprises, such as the human genome project funded through large sequential grants. Scientists have learned the benefits of working with teams and dividing into intellectual labor. Scientists rely on the rapid dissemination of their findings and place a high value on the immediate evaluation of their work. Preference is for peer review to happen before publication, enabled through archive, offering greater efficiency and more participation in the process of evaluation, and they hope ultimately more citations. When a scientist speaks of writing up results, this means a clear and highly structured communication by the later half of the 20th century. Scientists had maximized the format of the scientific scientific article in order to minimize the amount of time required by readers. Articles followed and to this day follow a generic outline containing abstracts and keywords demonstrated in clearly demarcated sections describing methods results and conclusions. And today, a full array of graphic and other visual aids. These established patterns paved the way for scientists to make use of the Internet. The use of technology is deeply embedded and essential to conducting research, disseminating and evaluating results and advancing scientific knowledge. Scholarly activities of humanists are typically bound up in exploring past scholarship found in established text. The goal of humanists is often to add to an unbroken intellectual chain of generative knowledge comprised of better conceptualized better informed studies that build on previous works. Scholarly products of humanists are slow growing, taking years of cumulative thought and effort. The past has taught humanists that their work should not be shared or evaluated before publication. Instead, the scholarship of humanists has been conducted and rewarded through individual achievements. Humanists prefer the free flowing essay or monograph that allows ample space for exploring new intellectual territory. Aesthetic concepts rather than digital capacities have shaped the work of humanists, their choice of expository forms and the structures of their arguments. The long form book is or should be a work of art to be read and reread for centuries to come. While there are impressive examples of teams building databases and creating one off digital projects. Humanists have understood that such accomplishments may not necessarily pay off in terms of their career, their reputation or their tenure and promotion. In addition, many humanists themselves remain unconvinced of the need to use technology to affect the substance of their scholarship. They may be unsure of how to use technology effectively or overwhelmed by the learning curve to reach and maintain needed proficiency. Despite the growing number of early and now midterm adopters in the humanities. Digitally enhanced scholarship continues to linger at the margins, rather than entering the mainstream of scholarly practices and products produced by humanists. While the methods and outputs of all academic work are gradually changing, the uneven rate of change is affected not only by cultural differences between the disciplines, but also by the attitudes and actions of the Academy at large, by publishers, by funders, individual universities, local academic departments and by libraries. Each stakeholder in the scholarly communication cycle grapples with its own way of dealing with the complex cultural, economic, personal and institutional world in which new scholarship is produced and disseminated. Each stakeholder also has played and continues to play a key role in advancing and advocating for change, both locally and nationally. It will take all of us to break the log jam and clear the path for the future, a future that is not just about digital scholarship, but about maximizing the changing capacities of our time to explore and document our intellectual journeys and discoveries. One example that addresses these issues head on is Brown University's bold proposal to the Mellon Foundation in 2014. I'm particularly glad to have some of our Brown colleagues on participating in today's session. Jointly written by the library and the Dean of the College, the proposal called for the university to renew its traditional roles, to promote the scholarship of its faculty, to influence the future of scholarly communication, to reduce the barriers to acceptance of innovative scholarship, especially in the humanities, and to build infrastructure provides specialized services and to advance the ways in which tenure and promotion might be affected. We were very fortunate to receive this grant and based on initial successes Mellon provided Brown with additional funding this past fall to continue creating long form digital publications of top quality scholarship. The first of Brown's digital monograph projects was published by the University of Virginia Press this summer, a digital edition of the 1618 multimedia text Atalanta Fugiens that we looked at earlier. All of our libraries are at different stages along the continuum of expanding our roles in the scholarly communication life cycle, sometimes called the research life cycle. In many instances, these new roles are identified as the library's digital scholarship services. Libraries are responding to scholars who increasingly are seeking new tools and approaches to conducting disseminating and preserving their scholarship. Here are a few examples of how libraries are partnering with faculty and students to advance today's scholarship digitizing and making materials available, enabling interaction with digital content, offering online workshops and tutorials. This slide is from Georgetown and I was especially impressed by the work that Georgetown librarians did over the summer to help prepare the library and the campus for its online learning environment, supporting electronic portfolios, citing research outputs, which could not be published at that at that particular time published by the journal, disseminating updated and unpublished code and data, ensuring compliance with publisher and funder data policies, visualizing sound, also visualizing other kinds of data to offer new ways of exploring research topics, promoting and recognizing the library's research support services, supporting student research projects. This is a project from Georgetown created by a graduate student, and providing premium presentation space. Here we see Brown faculty member working with Apollo astronaut Dave Scott, and we see the reaction of the audience captivated by what is visualized, what is being said. Scholarship that in the past would not have been possible to share. Many of our libraries are creating space where we can prototype and create maker environments. We are building communities. And we are multiplying our capacities. Most importantly, we are changing both the means and measures of our success, building an infrastructure that can support and advance institutional services, as well as continue to meet the customized needs of individual constituents. On many of our campuses, the library has become a central force in advancing new forms and methods of scholarly communication. We provide neutral, open, collaborative spaces for experimentation and creation, and we offer training and assistance to faculty and students. At the same time, we are teaching ourselves and preparing ourselves for a very different future. By recruiting new skills within the library and partnering with new technological, organizational, and policy strategists across our campuses, we are able to help generate a broader, more effective structure to support all forms of research, teaching, and learning. The priorities of today's libraries and library staff are shifting, and at times are blurring boundaries within the library and across the campus. But our increasingly, but our work increasingly depends on the successful collaboration of multi-professional teams drawn not just from the library, but also from inside and outside the university. The affordances of digital scholarship hold great promise and potential locally and around the world. But just as we are catching up with digital scholarship, new skills and approaches to work and to scholarship continue to evolve. We need to get moving because the future is leaving. Thank you very much. That was just really interesting, Harriet. Thank you very, very much. So many things to think about. One of the questions that I have for you, and I encourage all of the participants to put some questions in the chat and I will relay them to Harriet, is can you tell all of us what are some of your strategies or the strategies that you encourage your staff to use to get the word out? We hear so many times that, oh, the faculty had no idea that the library had these kinds of expertise or equipment or whatever it is or graduate students as well. What are some of the strategies you recommend? Well, I think all of us have been working on our strategies recently as the start of the new semester of how we communicate across campus. And I've had the opportunity to invite several of my library colleagues to join me in conversations with large faculty groups, with the vice president for research who is talking about research so that the library can be included in those conversations. And also talking with new faculty. Beth Marhenka is on this session today. And if Beth were able to talk to us, she would talk about the ways in which she and her group in the Gillardin Center, New Media Center, have contests for looking at projects that have been completed during the year, having contests and winners, and putting them on our website, advertising the great work that we are doing. Beth also has been deeply engaged for a number of years in conversations, ongoing conversations, I should say regular conversations with candles at Georgetown. Candles is a group center for, I don't know all the words but for teaching and learning. And they also work with faculty on digital tools. And this is something that the library and candles have been working with for a very long time working together. So there are many ways in which we are able to give presentations, improve our websites, highlight websites, and also, of course, to work directly with faculty who will then help us spread the word faculty and students. So these are some of the ways in which we have promoted our work. So we have three questions. I'm going to take them slightly out of order because one's more of a follow up which is, how do you get the more reticent faculty to understand that digital scholarship is a role that the library needs to play? What are some of your phrases or strategies? Well, first I might ask reticent from what standpoint, you know, a lot of times faculty are reticent, as I mentioned briefly, because they themselves don't see the potential that digital methods have in creating really differently or more substantive scholarship than they're able to do, especially in the humanities. So I think one of the real payoffs that I experienced really in various places that I have worked, even going back to my first job at Rutgers, is being able to sit down with faculty and ask them to talk about the work that they are doing and how they accomplish that work. And then mention some tools or methods by which they might actually be able to enhance the work that they are doing. I think this has made a big difference. Now, there are also questions about faculty may have reticence about whether the library itself is a capable partner. I don't know if that is really what your question was or what the other question was, and I believe there's no better way than to prove what you're doing. The library is cheap, right? But I think showing examples of ways in which the library has had interventions in successful interventions and partnerships in creating scholarship and supporting the work of other scholars. That is really, I think, the ticket that sells. So those are some of my comments. Thank you Harriet. The next question and actually there are quite a few I'm not sure if we'll be able to get to every one of them, but we'll go to this one. Has the library been involved in discussions about how digital scholarship is evaluated, rewarded, especially for promotion and tenure and you could speak either to Georgetown or Brown or whatever you like. I should say that I am currently serving at Georgetown on a newly formed humanity center group. And it's a group that was formed last, it's been a year, so about a year ago, was formed and interestingly, there has been very little talk in that group. I should say substantive talk about digital scholarship or digital humanities. The most talk has really been about traditional methods of scholarly practices in the humanities and supporting that. You know, in a number of conversations with faculty at Georgetown, it's always pretty much the same thing that these, this type of scholarship may not receive the support from the university that is needed. But Allison Levy is on the line. I don't know if Joe is on this line or not, but Allison was hired at Brown as the digital editor of works that would be produced through the Mellon Grant. And Allison knows very well in her conversations and conversations that Joe Maizel, who's the current university librarian at Georgetown, Joe and I had many conversations with faculty about the ways in which the library already had a track record. And we could show examples of what we had done and ways in which the faculty at Brown, especially some of the more senior faculty had produced digital works that in fact had been accepted at mostly in their cases for promotion rather than for tenure itself. But that is really one of the key elements that I see Allison's face, the key, key elements of this Mellon Grant and the renewal of the Mellon Grant that we would be able to support faculty at any place within their spot on the tenure and promotion line. That their scholarship would be of the highest quality. And Allison, I know you could talk for hours on this very topic, but yes. And the great thing, of course, is that the university, Brown, it is very much behind this and the co-PI on the grant is the dean of the college who at Brown is one of the primary promoters of tenure. Thank you, Harriet. Time is almost up. But if you can quickly give some quick thoughts to another participant about how to translate the benefit of spaces physical spaces like equipment and other things when we can't use spaces at all or in the same way right now. And I will mention that that will be part of our next webinar on Tuesday. But if you could answer that one quickly. Well, I'm glad that I don't have to be too explicit in this case, but I'll tell you that the opportunity of being in a space with a person, a faculty member or student who is eager to learn and to experiment. Is not entirely dependent on physical space. I think one of the most important things that as partners, librarians can provide is time and space in time. So the space of being able to go through questions to explore ideas to test those ideas to try them out on another person and to test them out on equipment. One of the things that Georgetown has done and I'm sure lots of other schools have done that is to expand our licenses and find ways to allow the use of some of the very specialized technology that we have in the library. It is time to allow the use to virtualize that technology so that can be put to great use and talked about and shared among faculty and students who are working remotely. So I won't take more time on that but I personally don't see that absence of physical space. We're permanently absent. That would be a different thing, but all of us are very hopeful that this is a temporary rearrangement. Thank you so much Harriet for your excellent talk and for your responses to the questions. Thank you to our participants for their really excellent questions and now we're going to turn to Keith Webster and I remind you you can type your questions for Keith at any point and at the very end. We'll try to get to as many questions for Keith as we can and if we have time we'll go back to additional questions for Harriet. Thank you. Over to you Keith. Thank you, Joan, and good afternoon everyone. It's great to be with you all. I'm just checking that my volume is on. Yes, good. Okay, so it's great to see so many familiar names in the participants list. I hope that you are all doing well during this pandemic I also send good wishes and thoughts to those of you affected by the fires out in the west. I'm not going to talk about specifics of digital scholarship at all you've got a tremendous roster of topics coming up over the next few weeks, and I would much rather allow experts in those fields to play to their strengths rather than to pretend to duplicate what they are doing. And also you will see that I'm not going to say much about digital humanities. I was struck when I was preparing for this talk that it's 25 years ago that I participated in my first digital humanities project, but Harriet has done a tremendous job in setting out digital scholarship to an extent from that perspective and I will say a little bit more about digital scholarship from an open science perspective. But what I'm going to do is start by talking about the fourth industrial revolution because I do think that that points to a very critical point in understanding digital scholarship. And then dig into that a little bit more fully before turning to some thoughts about the pandemic again not replicating what will come later in the series. Say a bit about foresight and future studies and how those planning digital scholarship centers might make use of those. And finally, try and tease this back to how we might think about digital scholarship in a post pandemic world. For those of you who don't want to listen to half an hour of this. The quick version is this that digital scholarship can be deeply engaged in emerging technologies. But we're starting from something of a disadvantage because a large part of the work that we have done in my praise and support of digital scholarship has relied upon project funding. But I will argue that COVID-19 perhaps has prompted a reset in how we allocate budgets and resources. And as we think about that we need to engage with the longer term future and then think about how digital scholarship emerges. So with that preamble, let's move on to thinking about the fourth industrial revolution. And Harriet had a very nice closing point about future eras and I'm going to pick that up through the perspective of industrial revolutions and recognize that we've been through a few of them by now starting with that of the late 18th century with the emergence of mechanical mechanical production steam engines and the like through to mass production of the late 19th century. And then moving into the more recent time, the digital revolution, the emergence of electronics and computers predominantly in the 1960s. And by the 2010s we recognized that a fourth industrial revolution was emerging, one that focused on artificial intelligence robotics and big data. And I would add to it, it's maybe not a fifth industrial revolution, but rather something about the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. And recognizing that the advance of robotics augmented reality and the like has perhaps produced a concerning scenario in which the service of humanity is perhaps too often eclipsed by the momentum of technology and commerce. And I do see a growing appreciation that trends towards technology and innovation and dehumanization needed to be paused and we need to think about the service of humanity in that context. And I do think that the UN SDGs are beginning to take a very fresh importance in this world, partly because of the pandemic situation, partly as arising against the technologies of the fourth industrial revolution. So if we think through these different revolutions, we can certainly see strong library relationships in the first libraries were gaining a place in their communities, focused on collections of books. And in the second industrial revolution, we saw large scale publishing and an expansion of scholarly universe and scholarly activity through the establishment of many universities. In the second industrial revolution, we started to see those library technologies of the industrial age, port to digital form online catalogs, electronic journals and the like. But I do think it's the fourth industrial revolution, where libraries truly will have the opportunity to embrace digital scholarship. And by that I think about our role as pioneers. The gross simplification here is that in the first and second industrial revolutions, our role was very much that of provider, we provided access to content and of course we still do that. But by the digital age, we had become partners, as well as providers, and people wanted to work with us. So if we move into the fourth industrial revolution, we see the opportunity to become pioneers and that was so evident in many of the things that Harriet showed us. It's striking to me and I talk a lot about AI, machine learning and libraries is the difficulty of finding images to illustrate my slides that don't affect or don't make use of graphics that have a blue background. There's clearly something in that and depict supreme intelligence. And I keep on struggling, but I always come up with the blue background and supreme intelligence and that's my only Boris Johnson joke today I promise so I'm going to move on and leave Boris where he belongs. If you do want to understand more about the work that I've been doing in this space, Jason Griffey and I spoke at the fall forum last December on AI and libraries and our presentation is available on the CNI website. So if you'd like to know more about my thinking on the industrial revolutions and the future of libraries, I give a talk at OCLC last October in Arizona, which is available on YouTube. My key question is, what do we mean by digital scholarship, and I can't at a CNI event not mention something that Cliff wrote that digital scholarship is perhaps a little bit awkward and perhaps nonsensical, not the work itself but the term. The survey of research libraries in the UK built upon earlier work by my colleague at Carnegie Mellon, Rick Mulligan who previously had been at ARL, and that pointed to a host of activities that fell under the umbrella town digital scholarship. It's worth noting that digital scholarship is perhaps a less familiar term that is not widely used amongst the researchers we seek to engage with and we touched in the Q&A on branding and marketing and that's perhaps something we just need to recognize. But of course the activities that fall under that umbrella term are indeed familiar to our scholarly community. The fluidity in the definition and understanding of digital scholarship within libraries perhaps reflects the variety of places and structures from which our services have originated from which they have developed and how they are delivered. It's apparent that digital scholarship activities occur within a variety of institutional departments, centers and structures, and not all of those are located within libraries. But of course how things are arranged is very specific and individualized to institutions. And that is just one caveat that I always present when I talk about these things that you can't automatically copy what someone else has done because that misses the institutional context in which you seek to apply it. I will argue as my remarks on the fold that digital scholarship is our future. It's going to be absolutely dominant and be, I think within the next decade, what libraries are about by and large there will be some exceptions of course but I think that digital scholarship will be the library of the future and that does make me wonder why it is perhaps not more prevalent in our institutional landscapes. At times I'm reminded of the Tony Blair era in the UK when the term Cinderella service was coined to characterize services that were tremendously important had unfilled potential were desperately needed, but perhaps poorly understood and consistently deeply underfunded. There are abundant examples of exciting projects and genuine impact of digital scholarship work, but it's my broad contention that we've not done a great job in most institutions at scale of investing in digital scholarship services. That's partly been because of the historic spend on other stuff from a library's perspective of course our large spend on collections and people to manage those collections, as well as the resource needs of digital scholarship. The majority of projects emerge from academic departments in my experience with the library acting as a provider or a partner and hopefully, as I said earlier in the future, a pioneer. And this means that funding for activities is often project specific and time limited, making sustainability of services and the retention of skills very difficult often we are competing for faculty and staff in a very competitive marketplace because they have skills that are deeply sought after across seven institutions and in the commercial marketplace. Service from a RL and research lab is UK have shown that librarians and archivists are seen to support the widest variety of services, amongst all stakeholders in the digital scholarship space though, particularly in areas of information expertise, enabling the usability of collections the creation of metadata, the digitization of analog material, digital preservation, digital publishing and so on. And it is clear that librarians and other specialists have an integral role in the development and delivery of digital scholarship services, and that their activities sit alongside those performed in the wider institution. So from that perspective that wider institutional view, the library exists in what I would characterize as a mixed economy of support. And we are sometimes only one of a number of places from which a researcher can receive support for their digital scholarship activities, but changes occurring within the broad concept of the role of the library are taking us in that direction of being a pioneer. And enabling new possibilities for digital scholarship activity. Many of you will be familiar with this model from OCLC, I won't explain it in depth but what it tries to synthesize is the expansion of the scholarly record that was typically recorded in the outcomes section of the model in journal articles, research reports and scholarly monographs, and to recognize that we can now capture many of the artifacts and products of the research process leading to those outcomes and the aftermath of the publication of those outcomes, because so much of those artifacts exist in digital form. Today, vast quantities of research materials are being generated digitally, they are easy and cheap to store, to share, to preserve, and because of that we're seeing the scholarly record expand in a variety of ways. We're seeing machines being used to analyze and extend the scholarly record, we are seeing a huge amount of reuse and community conversations around those products. And the documents that document the research process and its results are by and large, openly visible, but scattered across a variety of repositories and servers, publishers, platforms, social media, disciplinary repositories and so on. And this is where our role as experts in navigating the information landscape and stewarding that record are tremendously important. The process of the library becoming a research partner has been aided in many institutions by the creation of digital scholarship units and departments within the library, allowing the enhanced coordination of partnership activities with academic researchers, the demarcation of distinctive digital scholarship budgets, and the raising of the internal profile within the parent institution. But to do that at scale consistently takes resources. And that is where I think we might see some unintended benefits accruing from the pandemic. And the broad headline here is to recognize that perhaps we are able to take advantage of shifts outside our daily work and see how they play out inside our institutions. The worldwide crisis triggered by the pandemic has no parallel in modern history, and we'll be dealing with its fallout for years. And many things will change forever. Quite simply the world as we knew it six or seven months ago is no more. But broad and radical pronouncements like everything will change and an all or nothing analysis need to be deployed with great care. It's my view that the pandemic will not completely transform the world, but it is likely to accelerate many of the changes that were already taking place before it erupted and also provoke changes that would have seemed inconceivable before the pandemic struck. The crisis has rapidly forced us towards a digital world faster than ever, as more and more economic activity had no choice but to take place digitally. For us, the worlds of education, research, publishing, and many others. The pandemic and its knock on effects on higher education has accelerated and intensified trends that were already underway. And the result is a dramatic widening of the gap between those at the top and the bottom of the resource allocation model, and inevitably that will play out in our libraries. The fault lines in library budgets and our business models that we understood intellectually and often complained about before the crisis have now become fissures, separating the old reality from the new one. As we absorb sweeping budget productions alongside demands for new ways of doing scholarship. Much of the organizational inertia that usually stands in the way of unlocking big moves is now gone, as we respond rapidly to completely new demands, and to the great acceleration of pre existing trends. We're seeing this play out in all aspects of our lives. Digital transformation has been a buzzword in business circles for years as companies try to rethink everything about how they operate. And it turns out that for disciples of digitization there's nothing like a pandemic to force change. In the Della the chief executive of Microsoft observed that the social and physical distancing requirements created a remote everything, bringing forward by his calculation, the adoption of a wide range of technologies by two years. Some of our old habits will certainly return but many of the tech behaviors that we have adopted during the period of our campuses being closed will through familiarity become more natural. The transition towards more digital of everything in our professional and personal lives will be supported and accelerated by rethinking how we play with regulations. This play out rapidly in areas like telemedicine and in our field in the deployment of the happy trust temporary access service and the wider adoption of controlled digital lending. What I think we've seen is that organizations with resilient and future ready business models had the infrastructure already in place and were able to move quickly. And we are now saying organizations who weren't so well positioned. Think about what happens next and how to reallocate priorities and resourcing because resources are easier to reallocate when nobody needs to be convinced of the need for a rapid response and the targets we had previously no longer apply. I know that all sounds very corporate but I think that our plans and aspirations for digital scholarship can take much from this. Plus we're seeing budget cuts across the higher education sector. In many cases they will not be permanent. We've had to absorb widespread shocks to our operating revenue because so many students have deferred attendance due to travel difficulties or for other reasons and universities have seen considerable additional costs to invest in areas like improved air handling additional cleaning plexig glass everywhere. We're also investing in support of online and hybrid learning and online research activities. And for me that signals the opportunity for digital scholarship. What are the things that we need to do that will add value in the present time. How can we find the money we need to support those are there are new pots of money on campus for example for online learning that we can tap into. We also have costs that we can divest to allow us to do things in different ways. As we think to the future. We know that there's a longer story to be written, and we can do so and I'm going to be very quick on this section and be happy to follow up with anyone offline and thinking about the deployment of futures research as a way of helping us navigate change. Even when we embark upon planning, we draw a relatively straight line from the present to the medium term to the long term and beyond. And that might be that extrapolation that I show on this slide. But that points us in a single direction. The reality is there are lots of unknowns as the pandemic has sadly borne out, and we can perhaps view the future as a cone that represents extreme scenarios with our straight line extrapolation in the middle. We can point to a variety of potential futures out there and we can use a variety of techniques to help us populate that cone. This is a model from the Institute for the future which encourages us to look back to our past history as a way of planning for the future and cataloging signals of change that suggest potential future directions. As we've tried to embrace this in our pandemic response at CMU, our provost established a task force looking at long term futures, and in large part we were trying to build scenarios for the future of the institution. We were able to build upon work that had been published by Deloitte very early in the pandemic as a way of identifying scenarios that were likely to play at a global level, nothing at this stage to do with higher education. And I'm happy to show the link to this document. What Deloitte had done was identified a number of scenarios in which the world might respond to the pandemic. And as we thought about what that might mean for higher education, we were able to pinpoint possible future states in which the university might find itself. And then, where in my dean of libraries had I was able to think about what this might mean for the future of libraries and as I've said already, I truly believe that digital scholarship is at the heart of that future. So as we step into a post coronavirus future and thinking about digital scholarship, we need to find a balance between what worked for us in the past, and what might need to happen to succeed in the new normal. What I've seen play out at Carnegie Mellon is that we took thousands of courses online in the space of 10 days, and that showed institutionally the potential of digital scholarship. Almost all research went online and we had to support that accordingly. And both of these shifts and the significance of our enabling role provided us with an opportunity to reboot our relationship with faculty and students. We've worked to optimize and build upon our digital presence and we're now trying to build a definitive distinctive digital library brand. The closure of library collections, both on our campus and across our interlibrary, interlibrary loan networks has changed the perceived value of print collections, and our community has largely embraced digital content, digital workflow environment. We already were and increasingly are showcasing online accessibility to digital scholarship tools and techniques to allow for a greater creation and exploitation of the digital scholarly record. And our investment in open science was prophetic in many ways because the covert 19 pandemic has pointed to the significance of open science and across the research landscape, we have seen open sharing of data. The Allen Institute supporting this, what is really striking is of the 120,000 or so publications indexed in dimensions, how many of those are open access, but also how many of those were not necessarily peer reviewed, leading to some interesting questions around the integrity of the digital record. So as we think to the future, we are embarked upon a journey of responding, recovering and thriving and building digital scholarship against that background. As we think about how we make this happen, we are thinking about our move to open and our shift away from big deals and other things that suck a lot for our money to allow us to free up resource to invest in digital scholarship. We are seeing the growth of data sharing mandates at the federal level as a way of driving openness, which is inter intimately intertwined with digital scholarship. And as we more directly support online learning and research, there are tremendous opportunities for us. So with that, I am going to stop. Sorry that it got a little bit rushed at the end, but I know that John wanted to leave a few months for questions. Thank you so much Keith. That was fascinating and as I'd hoped provided a nice different type of perspective from Harriet's both really informative and thought provoking. We will take a question or two. There was one in the chat really from right when you got started. I don't think it's directly about your presentation, but you talked about the impact of the current COVID crisis. There's another societal issue that's, you know, has great prominence right now which are issues of diversity, equity and inclusion and social justice. How do you see librarians promoting digital scholarship to attain some of the goals of DEI initiatives. So I think my response there comes from two angles. The first is a celebration of our professional values, whilst I don't think we could claim to be the supreme champions here we have for decades enshrined values of diversity and equality as we provide access to information and as we live our roles as a very visible part of institutional communities and therefore I think we have the reputation of being champions in the space in our institutions, but I think digital scholarship allows us to do something that perhaps has been poorly attended to in many places and that is to give voice to those whose voices have not been heard. We recently conducted a review of our university archives and recognize that we had much to do in representing the lives of black faculty and students at Carnegie Mellon. And over the past few months we have been working with student organizations and with faculty to begin to identify items to be added to our archives, but to be prioritized for digitization. So that those can be shared widely and form a resource for scholarly inquiry. And I can see initiatives like that playing out across many institutions. Thank you. And I'm going to read a comment from Lisa Nicholl. That was really thought provoking. This is to you, Keith. I feel like we have been stuck in COVID planning for the fall and we can take a breath and think about the future and consider what we've done and how that changes what we can do in the future. And from my point of view, this is a lot of what this whole series of webinars is about to give you the space during all of this very logistical COVID planning to take a step back and say, where are we going from here? Let's talk about some exciting new initiatives that we can put our energy into. So I'm going to conclude the formal part of our program and we'll go back to Q&A, but we will be stopping recording. But first of all, I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to Harriet and to Keith for getting us off to a really wonderful thought provoking start. And I thank you to all the participants who gave us good questions and lots of good feedback. I'd also like to mention that we do have one session just devoted to diversity, equity, inclusion issues, and I expect those issues to come up in at least several other sessions as well as the DEI session. So thank you again. Stay on. If you would like to ask a question, I'll continue to look at the chat, but you may also raise your hand and I'll try to monitor that as well as I can to see you if you have raised your hand and would like to verbally unmute and ask a question. Thank you very much.