 Welcome everyone to the final session of day one. I'm Paige Pope. I'm CNI's communications coordinator. It's great to have you all with us today, and I'm here to introduce our final session. So this is our lightning round session, which will feature back-to-back presentations. So I just wanted to review a few housekeeping items. So first, if you could please hold your applause or try to hold your applause to the very end of the session, as these are supposed to be back-to-back. Finally, this will be recorded, as will all of our sessions here today and tomorrow, and posted on YouTube, Vimeo, and our website in the weeks following the meeting. And lastly, we will not have time for Q&A at the end of this, however, immediately following right out the door as we will have our wonderful reception where I invite you to come up to our speakers and engage them there and also tomorrow. So without further ado, we'll go ahead and get started. Good afternoon. I'm Don Waters, now with CNI. And for the 20 years I was at the Mellon Foundation, I worked with my colleagues in what was then the scholarly communications program, and of course with quite a few of you, to support the development of digital information infrastructure. This infrastructure was not an end in itself, but a means to advance the socially important processes in humanity's disciplines of building our collective knowledge of the world and each other. To help remind us of that larger objective, I would often paraphrase the famous slogan from the 1992 Clinton campaign. It's the scholarship stupid. The scholarship that now interests me in my role as CNI senior scholar is not just knowledge building in the humanities, but also that required across disciplines to address societal grand challenges. The grand challenges that face us as a society today include climate change and a range of other often closely related issues such as food security, forced migration, and pandemics, each of which in turn exposes and amplifies still other problems, such as inequality and racism. Among these various societal grand challenges, I've decided to focus my inquiries on climate change research. My reasons for this focus include the problems urgency and scope, which are clearly motivating the scholars that I've interviewed so far and which should therefore motivate those of us concerned with the information infrastructure they need to address the challenge. So let me say a few words about urgency and scope before I conclude with a few comments on infrastructure requirements. One sign of urgency is the ominous new phrases that we have learned from climate science and have moved in to our everyday language such as polar vortex and atmospheric rivers. Another is the regularity of dismaying reports, the last landed two weeks ago from experts on the UN sponsored intergovernmental panel on climate change. The chair of this panel warned, as many other experts have before him, that we are walking when we should be sprinting to slash greenhouse emissions and contain global warming. A key factor making solutions so elusive is the scope or wickedness of the climate change challenge. Some friends have joked that residing in New England, I must be using wicked in the Bostonian sense, meaning very such as it's wicked cold or she's wicked smart. Instead the term has a technical meaning formulated in the 1970s in the context of complexity studies. Those who coined the term wrote that the problem is that a problem is wicked when it is vicious like a circle or tricky like a leprechaun. Wicked problems are difficult to define. They lack clear measures of success and they are rarely solved. At best they are resolved over and over again. No resolving climate change is often compared to a moonshot because of the need for focused attention. The comparison is otherwise not an apt one. The goals of a moonshot are unambiguous with clear measures of success. Either NASA lands on the moon or it doesn't. Not so with climate change because the components of possible solutions are lodged in complex physical, biochemical, political, legal, economic, psychological, cultural and other systems that each follow their own dynamic but are also open and interdependent and therefore subject to influence from each other which in turn can wickedly, like a leprechaun, change the nature and definition of the problem. The scope of climate change as a wicked challenge in this sense means that it is intrinsically an interdisciplinary problem. It is not an easy task to bring all hands on deck to resolve. The NSF and NIH are certainly right to encourage the scientists applying for their grants, especially in closely related fields, to aim for transdisciplinarity which they regard as the pinnacle among the types of collaboration because it yields new conceptions and approaches that transcend those of the original disciplines. With enormous resources at the disposal of NSF and NIH, it is tempting for the public to stop there and rely on the STEM fields as our potential savior. STEM research is certainly crucial for addressing wicked human problems like climate change. The atmospheric and oceanic models that predict the rate at which the planet's temperature will rise are fundamental to our conceptions of the problem. However, the scientists in the climate change centers and institutes I have begun to explore clearly recognize that the effects of their research depend on their ability to extend the range of their interdisciplinary collaboration, to embrace the practical experiences of members of the public, including those with local and indigenous knowledge. They also welcome the contributions of researchers in political, economic, sociological and psychological studies, as well as those of specialists in the humanities. Or what one of my colleagues has aptly called the imaginary disciplines. Contributions from philosophy, religious and literary studies, history and anthropology and the arts help us generally to imagine alternative ways of being in relation to justice and the good life, our gods, our futures, our fictions, our past, other cultures and our creativity. Despite such imaginaries in climate change research, it will be difficult to accommodate to much less to mitigate the grim realities that face the planet. In the university centers and institutes devoted to the grand challenges of climate change where there is this rich and interesting array of interdisciplinary collaborations, I'm also finding an intense interest in and recognition of the need for substantial campus information infrastructure. The express needs cluster across the disciplines in the areas you might expect, tools to facilitate collaboration, to master the massive and growing journal literature, to incorporate local and indigenous knowledge systems, to manage databases and harmonize them across fields and research interests and to engage in data and text mining, modeling and simulations, mapping and other visualizations. The institutions that you represent have been reorganizing staff expertise and investing in resources and services in these areas for more than a decade. One of the effects of the growing faculty interest in grand challenges and especially climate change research appears to be increasing demand for these services. In addition, because of the interdisciplinarity, it also appears to be concentrating the demand into a shared need for common infrastructure across disciplines. Are all of you seeing this kind of rising and concentrated demand on your campuses? If so, what strategies are you planning or considering to scale your services and related infrastructure to meet this demand? Please let me hear from you and catch me at the reception, join me at the table for breakfast, grab me at a break or write me at this address. Thank you. Hi, I'm Doralyn Rossman. I'm Dean of the Library at Montana State University. And today I'm going to talk to you about a new initiative or spearheading at Montana State to create a research alliance. You heard some of the speakers from Ithaca SNR talking about what people want in higher ed right now. And so I don't think what we're doing is cutting edge, but I think we've learned a lot of lessons to the point where we are and so I hope that those might be helpful to you to hear in these early stages and hopefully the future CNI can tell you how it went. So this is a slide that's adapted from the University of Central Florida and it outlines the various pieces of a research cycle. So the pieces of the research cycle we see here are the various parts of what happens with research on a university campus. And what we recognize at our campus and we recognize this a while ago is a lot of those services are word of mouth. I happen to know who you should talk to over here to get this. And the research life cycle has many pieces to it and word of mouth is probably not the best way to be getting people to where they need to be. And so we have been meeting as a group across the campus from the library, IT, from the Center for Faculty Excellence, from our research vice president's office, meeting in these groups and to try to figure out how we can make ourselves better known. And we've been meeting for a couple of years and the constant problem that kind of came up is we would come together once every two months and then go back to our spaces. And so we decided we needed to have a mutually housed space so we could be in the same spaces, start talking to each other on a daily basis, make it so researchers don't have to know where to go. They just know that they have to go to one place and we'll get you to the right person. So we have this research life cycle and we basically started coming together to plan a space and so the space is going to be on the third floor of the library and it's going to include these partners. And that QR code doesn't work because this is a survey we conducted. I'll talk about that in a minute. But basically our primary partners are the Center for Faculty Excellence, the Office of Research Development, which is the pre-grants awards office for the Vice President of Research, Research Cyber Infrastructure, which is part of our IT unit. And the library, a subset of library, are the major partners in this initial alliance. And together we're going to be co-housed in this space and that means that we're going to have on a daily basis all the people who represent these areas in the same space. And one of the things that was a challenge for that is what does that space even look like? And so when I stepped into this current role in August, I've been in MSU for 20 years but I was disappointed Dean in August. Initially the library was going to have a couple of tables and then the other partners were going to have offices. I was like, no, that's not what we're going to do. We are not going to be equal partners from day one if we're sitting at tables and everybody else has offices. So fortunately the Vice President for Research had just changed over at the same time and I made that case to her and she agreed. So the library is going to have an office. Center for Faculty Excellence will have two offices that they're smaller than the library office and then two for the Office of Research Development. We're also going to have a person from the undergraduate scholars program so it's going to have a student component to it. And part of what we've been doing is just developing a plan. And part of that plan is we're not going to be co-tenants. We're going to be roommates, we're going to be a family, we're going to be a community. So what does it look like to be in a space together when you haven't had to share space before in that way? So some of what you've been walking through are some planning. So we've been meeting regularly and the plans have been taking shape with architects to sort of redesign the space, looking at what are the funding logistics. So we've got myself as Dean, Vice President for Research, the Head of Center for Faculty Excellence and then our second level reports are also meeting regularly. What's great about that is there's a lot of like daily minutia that needs to be worked out plus some of the bigger picture. And so we are meeting together regularly. And some of the things we've tried to establish early on are conducting the survey I mentioned and then developing a memorandum of understanding. What does it look like to be in that space? Who calls the plumber if there's a leak in that space? I mean down to that level, a communication plan. How do we get the word out? What is this space? How do we talk about ourselves? Assessment, how do we know what success looks like in this space? And then how do we message this internally to the library? We've had some of our employees say we're losing space. We are not losing space. We're gaining an opportunity. So part of this is we are bringing in collaborators. We're going to be bringing in faculty as a result of this. And we are right in the middle of it. It's the first time I will say the library has gained an office in a really long time. So the office that we have right now, it's a group study room. We're building nine group study rooms on a different floor to replace the five that are going over to this other project. So it's a win there and that's a constant messaging challenge for us in the library to talk about that. So the initial survey we did, we asked about services that we provide and what people want. So we asked about services, training, research leadership development, information seeking and management skills, technology and systems and support and research visibility to find out what our community wanted. Not surprising, they want help finding funding. They want help finding collaborators and interdisciplinary opportunities. They want application development help. That wasn't a surprise. They want more help with their budget post award. So these are the kinds of things that we actually are already providing, but they're the ones that we can put in the forefront. So we are opening up this summer. So the project we've got so far is right in the cusp of launching and my hope is, like I said, that I can come back here and tell you about how that went. But I think one of the most important messages that I feel I've been able to get across is the libraries of major partner in this from day one and I think for us to truly be seen as a major partner if you're going to invite people in, you need to actually advocate that from the beginning. So thank you very much and I'll pass it on to the next presenter. My name is Nick Lindsey, good afternoon. I'm the director for journals and open access at the MIT Press. This is my first CNI. It's a real pleasure to be here and thank you so much for inviting me. So I'm going to talk briefly about a new program that we launched in 2021 called Direct to Open or D2O. So D2O is designed to open all front-list monographs and edited collections from the MIT Press in a given year. Roughly around 90 books that are broken up into two collections for libraries to support. One is a humanities and social sciences collection. The other is a STEM collection, though the vast majority of libraries have actually decided to support both. It works on a pledge model with MIT Press setting financial targets and libraries pledging based on a tier system that takes into account both the institution type and its size. About one-third of libraries that have supported the program have agreed to support it or have done so for a three-year term while the rest are doing it on a year-to-year basis. As an incentive to participate, libraries that pledged to support the collection received term access to the full backfile of books on the MIT Press Direct platform, which is hosted by Silverchair. This amounts to approximately 2,500 books. If the Press reaches its financial goal in a given year, it will open up all monographs and edited collections if we fall short and we end up with, say, only 90% of the revenue that we were supposed to get in a given year. It will open up 90% of the books and the other 10% will remain closed. As we all know, the market for monographs really isn't what it used to be and the D2O model really allows us to figure out a way to create both a sustainable and financially responsible method for publishing our monographs while at the same time living up to our mission to disseminate knowledge as widely as we can. So the numbers for D2O so far have been pretty solid. We feel like the library community has really been very supportive of this experimentation. We have, these numbers are as of the end of March. We're up to 319 participating libraries and 11 consortia. And we managed to actually reach our goal in 2022 and make the complete list of monographs that we published that year open. We've already announced that all the eligible books from our spring list from 2023 will be made open and we'll make an announcement about the fall books sometime this summer, probably in July. As with any experiment though, there have really been some significant challenges and a whole lot of tweaking to make it work. The first three items on the slide were probably the biggest ones we faced but really not the only ones by any means. The first two issues there in internal workflows and then the timing of our OA decisions are really connected. So we needed to adapt our internal workflows to allow for some uncertainty about whether or not a book was actually going to be made open access. It's not a great situation to have production not know whether the front matter of a print book should or should not have a Creative Commons license in it, for example. We've not been able to set the deadline for pledges far enough in advance to be able to safely say that a book will be will or will not be OA well before it needs to be sent to the printer. This is made as you might imagine for some anxious moments at MIT Press and some very, very, very last minute corrections. Our hope is that eventually we're going to get to the point where we'll have enough of those three year pledges circulating in the system which will allow us to say with some confidence that we will be able to make a book OA several months if not years in advance. Another major issue has been international participation. So we've been very heartened with the response from libraries in the U.S. and especially Canada, go Canada, which have been incredibly supportive. But parts of Europe have been really good as well, though there's certainly some more work for us to do there. The rest of the world has been a struggle though, primarily due to a lack of resources. Despite our best efforts, we've been unable for example to get any participation from any institutions from China and frankly participation across all of Asia has been quite low. So to try and jump start this, we've recently introduced international rates for parts of the world, certain parts of the world and we hope this ends up getting many more libraries in the door. On the plus side, usage increases for the books we've made open has really been substantial. So comparing the years 2018 to 2021 when all the books were closed with 2022, which was our first D2O year, we saw a very dramatic jump in usage. Our open access humanities and social science titles were viewed on an average of almost 5,000 times versus an average of almost 1,000 times for the total access titles. Our open access STEM titles were viewed just under 4,000 times versus an average of almost 1,200 times for the total access titles. So we're seeing really significant increases in usage across all the books that are part of the D2O collection. We do hope in the future to actually conduct some citation analysis on these to be able to determine whether or not these OA books are getting more citations, but it's just too early in the program to be able to tell. So in addition to the library community, D2O has really been embraced by authors of the press, have seen both pleasantly surprised and uniformly happy to have their books be a part of the program. Authors are, of course, given the opportunity to be able to opt out for whatever reason they like or no reason at all. But we have very, very few people take us up on this, which has been great. So combined with the very strong support of the library community, we feel like we're definitely on the right track with Direct to Open at MIT Press. So thank you very much. And I hope you have plenty of questions at the reception. I'll definitely be there. Thank you. Hello. I am Charla Lair, Senior Strategist of Open Access and Scholarly Communication from Lareses. This is also my first C&I, and I'm thrilled to be here talking to you today. Diamond Open Access refers to a scholarly publication model in which publishers do not charge fees to either authors or readers. OA Diamond Publishing has been around for decades. It is not new nor insignificant. The recent OA Diamond Journals study performed by Coalition S in Science Europe reveals that there are many OA Diamond Journals estimated up to 29,000 in the world. OA Diamond Journals publish around 9% of the total number of scholarly articles similar to ABC-based OA Journals which publish around 11%. The OA Diamond sector is diverse in terms of global regions and disciplines. OA Diamond Journals serve mainly a national authorship but disseminate their output to a largely international audience. OA Diamond Journals are then much more multilingual than ABC-based ones. However, they are largely dependent on volunteer labor and relatively small, often published by small university-based publishers with a large majority of journals published by those with five or fewer journals and often even just a single one. The fact that few OA Diamond Journals belong to large publishers means that there is less bargaining power for funding, fewer resources for marketing and thus lower visibility of the OA Diamond sector as a whole. Overall, the survey indicated that funding beyond in kind contributions must be considered vital to ensure strong and healthy OA Diamond Journals. In 2020, Lyrisis launched the Open Access Community Investment Program, a community-driven framework that enables multiple stakeholders to evaluate and collectively fund Diamond Open Access Journals. OA-CIP provides a hub for Diamond OA content published by university presses, library publishers and non-profit independent publishers such as societies or scholar-led initiatives. The OA-CIP criteria form completed by each participating journal provides potential funders with useful information about the publications and publishers. This enables investors to make principled spending decisions and strategically fund programs that align with their missions. Investments in OA-CIP support costs of labor, infrastructure, contingency and innovation of each participating journal and do so through five-year commitments allowing the journals to focus on publishing rather than continually trying to find money to keep the lights on. Investors can fund individual journals or fund the entire OA-CIP portfolio and can pay the five-year commitments upfront or annually. This flexibility enables an array of communities to share the cost of funding these journals at rates lower than the average APC. OA-CIP has come far in a very short period. Since OA-CIP has launched 65 institutions from four countries have committed nearly $800,000 to support 11 journals sustainably for five years. We are in the middle of the third funding campaign so these numbers will hopefully grow considerably in the next few months. But it's not just about the money. We're trying to answer some of the big questions being asked about open access publishing not by theorizing but actual practice. Like can societies sustainably transition their paywall journals to diamond open access? What does sustainable mean? Can a journal thrive after leaving Elsevier or Springer Nature and partnering with a library publisher? Will US libraries fund a diamond OA journal published in France or the UK? What about India? And many more questions that I don't have time to pose here. The program has been gaining international attention. It is a huge honor that the steering committee of the Budapest Open Access Initiative in their recent 20th anniversary recommendation specifically cited OA-CIP as a program for the global library and funding agency communities to support and because of its early success, albeit very small scale, many in the ecosystem see its potential to scale and serve a much larger volume of OA diamond journals. Because of this, OA-CIP is being included in international conversations for building a global federated funding infrastructure to sustain not just existing OA diamond journals but also to support those seeking to transition from a paywall model to an open one. As you can see, in the first two rounds, OA-CIP has fully funded journals from university presses, library publishers, and scholar-led initiatives. In the third and current round, we are trying to fully fund six journals. Several of them are published by societies but we also have a scholar-led publisher, library publisher, and university press represented. I'm so grateful for all of the institutions that have already committed funds this round although we have raised more funds thus far than in previous years. We still have quite a way to go to fully fund these six journals. I ask that if your organization is looking to invest in non-APC open journal initiatives to please consider participating in this program. So what's next? We are currently working with one of the OA-CIP participating journals editorial boards to create a template annual report for OA-CIP journals to complete each year that will communicate to investors how the journals spend the funds raised and what levels of impact they are measuring. Soon we will start the process of selecting next year's journals. So if you have a journal that might be suitable for this program, please contact me. We are by no means the only ones doing a project like this. Open Library of Humanities has been sustainably facilitating collaborative funding of Diamond OA journals for eight years. They are funding programs similar to OA-CIP that have recently emerged like TIB's Koala Project in Germany, JISC's open access community framework in the United Kingdom, as well as DMOS and Craft OA, two epic grant projects funded by the European Union to build an EU-wide infrastructure to support Diamond Open Access Publishing. All of this simultaneous invention merely reveals the kind of transparent, collaborative, and principle aligned infrastructure that our global community really needs to sustain open access publishing. We are actively engaging and even collaborating with all of these programs I mentioned to realize our shared vision of a distributed global funding network so that these journals can access an international funding community. But first and foremost, we need to successfully fund our current campaign. I'm not just asking you for money. I'm asking for everyone to consider a different way of funding scholarship. Nothing is going to change if we don't change. Dr. Martini, founder of Open Library of Humanities, recently wrote the following about Diamond Open Access. I believe we are at a crossroads. We will either now succumb to APCs and the research publication ecosystem will become even more stratified than it has been to date. Or we could embrace a revolution. Most Diamond OA journals represent such a revolution in microcosm. Somebody decided that the existing system wasn't good enough and did something to change it in founding their journal. If we could redirect resources to such systems away from the profiteers while supporting their infrastructure, we would do a lot more good for the world than we ever did by propping up shareholders. OACIP is part of this revolution. And if you want to learn more and be a part of this, please contact me. Thank you. Hi, I'm David Millman from NYU. Good to see you all. I would like to give you a quick update on a project we're doing with a couple of other university libraries, the Preservation Operations Portico in Clarks to help university presses better preserve the kinds of new forms of publishing that they're engaged in. And by new forms, I'm thinking of things that are not traditional monographs. They're born digital. They might be using special kinds of files or different kinds of materials, databases, models included. This work applies to other kinds of digital projects too. And we can talk about at the reception why we chose to start with university presses, but it applies more broadly. So just quickly, the history is that we had a project a few years ago with a lot of the same partners where we studied the kinds of output from these university presses. And we came up with a set of guidelines, and there's a link there, that were recommendations for things that one could do to better ensure long-term preservability of the material. The next phase, the phase that we're in right now, we're working with a lot of the same players and we've expanded a little bit and I'll tell you how in a sec, with the same players to this time work a little bit further upstream. And so we are now embedding our preservation team during the editorial and production process that those presses are going through so that we're part of the process way earlier while they're making decisions about how they want to publish that book. We're also working with the software platforms and most of these university presses have developed their own. And so for instance, Fulcrum, Manifold, Pub, Pub, Ravenspace originated in those university presses and to some degrees are still there but other degrees have slightly different business models and have evolved over time. But so we're talking with the presses and we're also talking with these software developers at the same time with the same kind of approach. So the approach is we're interviewing them, we're talking, we're gathering data, we're documenting what they're doing and we're giving them advice based on our reflection of what they're doing and how it compares to the 68 guidelines. So let me just take a sec and run you through one, this is one of the data collection processes and there are others but let me just give you a quick sample of this one. So this is a matrix of the 68 guidelines or those boxes and this is our experience with one publisher, this was Pub, Pub. And the little icons mean so just quickly, the green one means we notice for this guideline it's relevant to this particular publisher or platform and we should tell them about it because they don't know. The yellow one means this guideline is relevant to them and they do know and they're doing something about it. The blue one means after our interview with them in the conversation we realize there may be a gap that we should be talking, having a conversation with them about. The purple one means that after the conversation we had with them they changed their practice and now they're a little more preservable based on the intervention and the red X means for whatever reason they were not able to go that way. And there are other data that we're gathering to and we're trying to try a few different dimensions to see what we're gonna be able to learn from this. But here's what we're learning so far, so patterns and observations to date. Really important is being able to determine what the author's intent was and I mean that may sound obvious but it turns out not to be and it's really important part of a publisher's conversation between an editor and an author. This turns out to be really key. It helps them focus on what's the most important thing and prioritize among all of the different options and things that you can do with digital projects and keeps them out of the weeds and focused. One thing about this that we don't really understand very well is how do we keep our eye on that author intent over time so presumably these publications will migrate to new platforms over time because the old platform is gonna get old and it has to go somewhere. At that point of migration, how are we gonna remember what the original author intent was? And so this may be a role for these platforms to take on. We're having that conversation now. Another thing we're seeing, especially with some of the platforms that are not as closely connected with their original press is that different users of those platforms have a wide range of interests in preservation. By that I mean some of them have a low interest in preservation and some of those platforms are used for things other than scholarly publishing, so that makes sense, but we weren't looking, we were surprised to see that. And then what kind of best practices can we offer? And we're starting to get some of that from the data that we're seeing. So for instance, can we help people with protocols for acquiring third-party material that they may be citing? So things like YouTube citations or other kinds of material that aren't theirs, we could also help them with some legal terms of use best practices so that they could have more control over some of that material and certainly over the longer period. And the problem with these best practices is that they change over time too. So how are we gonna sustain that? And it's not super clear exactly what we're gonna do or what we're gonna recommend for that. And then we should do something about the guidelines themselves. I mean, there are 68 independent guidelines and they're great, but it's a little overwhelming and they have some structure but they could use a little more structure so we're interested in revising them if not reformulating a couple of them, then at least making them a little more easy to swallow. And then last thing is we're noticing for those publishers and platforms that have spent a fair bit of attention to accessibility, they seem to be a little, having a less difficult time understanding the points we're making about preservability too because it turns out those practices are coincidentally, I guess, related to each other and so similar kinds of things are in play. So that's what's going on. Those are the findings so far. We're about halfway through and we're looking to continue the conversation and we'll see you at the reception. Thanks. Hi everyone. I'm Dylan Riediger. I manage Ithaca SNR's program area on the research enterprise and it's the only thing standing between all of us at a reception. I'm going to try to be brief even by the standards of a lightning round presentation but I did want to take a few moments this evening to go into a little more detail about a project that my colleague Iwana mentioned in passing earlier this afternoon and that is a new project that Ithaca SNR will be launching this fall on the subject of generative AI and how universities can productively engage with it across much of their mission. I initially had planned to call this slide stating the obvious. I think it will be clear to many people in this room that the sudden effusion of generative AI into the public sphere and it's the transformation of AI from a kind of specialized tool into a general purpose tool has the potential to pretty radically reshape how universities do a lot of their business and the landscape of learning, teaching and research. It's also a landscape that is evolving very rapidly. It's hard to keep up with even for those of us who are following it closely and it looks likely to change pretty consistently at least for the foreseeable future. We've been talking with a lot of universities and I'm sure only a handful of those who are having these conversations about what an institutional response to this challenge might be and how to productively engage with AI and that's what Ithaca SNR is beginning to work on this fall with a cohort of universities. The project in its bare bone details looks something like this. We're looking to put together a cohort of approximately 15 universities who are committed to the idea that AI can be generative for their students, for faculty and for researchers on their campuses and we are going to bring these people together into a community of practice or a community of learners to spend approximately two years looking at this subject from several angles. Obviously AI is going to have profound implications for pretty much every aspect of a university's mission and operation. Our project is going to focus primarily on three particular areas, how, when and if students should be encouraged to engage with generative AI, how faculty in their capacities as instructors and teachers might incorporate these tools into their pedagogy and into their preparation as teachers and finally how researchers across disciplines might engage with these as part of their research workflows and methodologies. These are, there are other ways you could kind of slice this up. These are the ways that best align with SNR's mission and that I think are central to a lot of the implications of this for higher education. We'll be asking each team that participates to put together a multi-unit team. This is a project that is very much focused on the institution as a whole so while libraries will likely be important players, we anticipate representation from a variety of other units. The project will involve three major components that will unfold in roughly sequential order. The first of these is iterative assessment of the landscape with an emphasis on trying to understand new tools and their capacities and the policy environment within which universities might consider how to engage with these tools because the landscape here is moving so rapidly. SNR, which will be holding up a lot of the burden of doing this research, will be doing this in two major waves but continuously throughout the cycle so that people who are participating have access to up-to-date information. We'll also be working with campuses to conduct interviews with instructors and researchers across their communities and across disciplines to try to understand faculty and instructor and researcher needs and their practices in this area and how they're evolving over the coming year or so. In addition to this SNR we'll be conducting interviews on our own to make sure that we're catching a good representative sample of disciplines that might not be represented within the cohort. We'll bring all this together in the final phase of the project which is really focused on first, creating a university-level understanding or policy or guideline about what the university as an institution imagines the role of generative AI to be. We'll then work with institutions during the second year of the project to focus on building campus coalitions and consensus about how to implement that high-level vision for AI down to the unit level of departments, of writing centers, of libraries, and so forth, other stakeholders around the institution. The goal here is really ultimately to get a sense of that interplay between an institutional-level perspective on how these tools might be used productively and then to refract it through the unit level because obviously disciplines and different institutional actors within a university are going to have their own unique needs, perspectives, challenges, and opportunities in this space. I will leave things there and buy us all a minute of extra time for the reception but I'm happy to answer questions about this at the reception or elsewhere, so thanks for your time. Okay, so I'm actually the last thing standing between you and the reception. I just wanted to say thank you again, thank you to all of our presenters. I'm sure there will be plenty of questions at the reception. That concludes our official day one and I hope to see you tomorrow and please head through the doors to the reception. Have a good evening, everyone.