 Once again, I want to welcome you to CNI Spring Virtual Meeting. I am giving this just a few more minutes while folks trickle in before we get started on our webinar for today. See that folks are still joining us. So I will give this maybe another 30 seconds before I introduce our speaker for today. Okay, I think we're going to get started. Once again, I want to welcome everyone to CNI's Spring 2020 Virtual Membership Meeting. My name is Diane Goldenberg Hart. I'm assistant director for CNI and I'm really delighted that you all could join us today. This afternoon we're joined by Tina Bache from IUPUI and Tina is going to be talking to us on the topic of creating an open values statement. The title of her webinar is guided by values creating an open values statement. Before I turn it over to Tina, I just want to draw your attention to a couple of things. First off, if you look at the bottom of your screen, there's a little Q&A button that you can press and you'll have a Q&A box pop up. We invite you to share your questions with Tina at any time throughout her talk. At the end of her presentation, we will be taking those questions and asking Tina to address them. There's also a chat box where I will be sharing the URL for Tina's slides and a couple of other pointers that will give you some more information on her topic. At this time, I would like to turn it over to Tina and welcome her for presenting this afternoon and thank her so much. Tina, after you. Thanks Diane. I'm so happy to be here today and thanks to everyone for attending today. This is a new experience for all of us, I know, so we'll get started. So as Diane said, I'm here to talk about our experience at IUPUI University Library, creating an open values statement. So I'm going to start by giving a bit of context for how this all started. So we had decided to form a scholarly communication advisory group at the library, which was inspired by a University of California group actually that our scholarly communication librarian Jerry O'Dell brought to my and our dean's attention. The purpose of the group is to facilitate strategic investment in scholarly communication initiatives, resources, and services. And so shortly after we had thought about this and I had drafted a charge and not sort of thing. Make sure, okay. Dean Palmer and I attended the choosing pathways to open access forum that was hosted by UC Berkeley. And through our attendance at that forum, we recognized the need to take a step back and first determine what URL or university libraries. I will say you all repeatedly probably what you've all opened values are so that the work of our advisory group could be guided by those values. And then I'll come back to the role of University of Western Ontario libraries shortly. So in light of this idea of going back and really looking at our values, I revised that charge document for the advisory advisory group to include the idea of basing this work on our values both in the rationale that you see on the screen now, kind of rooting what the future work of that group in a values based vision, and as the first concrete task of the group. So the kind of long term purpose of this group is to evaluate and recommend potentially transformative scholarly initiatives for investment. But before we got to that piece, we wanted them to take a look at how we would roof that in the values. And you may ask why, why did we think developing an open value statement was important? Kind of had a two fold purpose in the audience. So we wanted to ensure that all of the library's employees had a shared understanding of the value of the open. We've always been very involved in open access initiatives, other open initiatives, but not everyone in the library has been part of that work. So we wanted to create a shared understanding. And then, of course, as I've said, the purpose is to guide the work of this advisory group going forward, so helping them establish these criteria, et cetera. And then finally, to try to enhance the transparency of decisions related to open initiatives and memberships so that both internally and potentially externally folks understood why we were making the choices we were making, particularly when funding and human resources were involved. So the next question was really, how do we do this? How do we define a holistic vision? And that's where we come back to the Western Libraries, University of Western Ontario Libraries. We chose to base the development of our statement on a process that some authors from that library system described in the library with the lead pipe article. And they described their process for creating the open access statement that you see on the screen. So for us, this meant creating mechanisms for gathering input and feedback from the entire library that our new advisory group would review and use to create the statement. We modified Western Libraries' initial questions to staff that they used to reflect our desire for our statement to more broadly address our open values beyond what is typically thought of as open access. And I'll talk a little bit more about that as we go along. So our input process began during our January 2019 organizational development days by gathering responses to those modified questions, which you see on the screen. What does open mean to you? Why does or should University Libraries support open? And how does or could University Libraries support open? Responses to those questions were grouped by themes and discussed in an open values town hall session. And then the information we gathered in that town hall informed our next steps. So here you see we went through lots of post-its in this process. So our next phase was to conduct two internal focus groups where we reviewed the themes of the town hall and then asked participating employees to review two example open access statements from other University Libraries and to annotate the statements with indicators of support, caution, and confusion regarding specific words and phrases. And you see examples, coded examples of some of that on the screen now. So the participants discussed their annotations with the group and the themes, annotations, and discussion notes were compiled and reviewed by this advisory group to inform a first draft of our state. So this just kind of gives you a timeline of our process. So by the end of January, the group was reviewing summaries and they did their own compilation of phrases and words that we wanted to be sure to include or avoid based on the coding from those focus groups of support, caution, and confusion. And in the month of February, we planned how we were going to draft the statement and it actually worked out that pairs of group members wrote the first draft in three sections, which corresponded to those opening three questions of what, why, and how. And then we held a writing session where everybody came to the room and worked together kind of silently, so ensuring that people would find that focus time to do this work. And then as the group leader, I compiled those sections into a cohesive draft that the group repeatedly reviewed, and then finally approved as ready for a second stage of feedback. And that took us another couple of months to work through that process. So our second round of library wide feedback occurred during our May organizational development days. And during this session, two of the advisory group members provided an overview of the process to date and asked attendees to document their support, caution, and confusion again about specific words and phrases in the draft statement. And you can see the instructions we gave to the attendees on the screen. So we had two different colors of post-its and had people use those and write comments. So once everybody went through that process individually, attendees then engaged in a group discussion of their caution and confusion notes. And then we had the pieces of the statement posted throughout the room and people could go around and add their post-its as you see here. So following that session, I again compiled all the results into a single annotated version of the statement to make it easier for the advisory group to go through and review and integrate the feedback, which we did over the course of two meetings to finalize the library's open value statement. And at this point you're asking, what does it say? What does the open value statement say? Well, it is on our website, and Diane has likely shared a link to that in the chat at this point. And the introduction of the statement really describes our commitment to openness and some of our beliefs around that and values and talks more specifically about individual values. So we were intentionally broad in the scope of our statement. As I mentioned earlier, we didn't want to have an open access statement. We wanted to have an open value statement because some within the library had a narrow definition of what open access meant. And we wanted this statement to encompass more than open journal literature, which is what a lot of people thought about when they heard about open access was that journal literature. And so we settled on open culture as this sort of phrase that we would use to indicate the broad scope. And you'll see from the values breakdown on the screen and some of the words that I've bolded that our open values really are rooted in the values of librarianship. So we want things to be available to all, equitable access, et cetera. And then based on our open values, the statement goes on to articulate our commitments to following through on our values of action. So we are committed to making research available through various methods, disseminating and increasing the visibility of not only IUPUI research, but our central Indiana history. We have a lot of cultural heritage, digital collections that we have long supported, et cetera. Just pause for a second. And then our commitments go on to include choosing open source software, making our creations open whenever we can, joining national advocacy work and supporting public policy initiatives. And then in addition to activities that have traditionally been under the purview of our center for digital scholarship, we made an explicit tie to our collections work to this point about partnering to raise our collective bargaining power with vendors. So pushing for change in scholarly communication through that mechanism. So that's what the statement says. And so now we have this statement and how are we going to utilize it moving forward? What's next? My West Wing fans will recognize that phrasing there. So the next phase of the advisory group's work was to develop evaluation criteria, which was another multi step process that we drew on several existing things to create. So we drew on the University of California star team criteria, the team that kind of inspired this whole process from the get go sparks, good practice principles for scholarly communication services and of course our own open value statement. So we mapped potential criteria to those documents and discussed individual criteria. And you can see some of the like ranking and categorizing in this first screenshot here. And our goal is really to try to reduce the number of criteria to what we thought was most important to you well if you look at the University of California star team criteria they have it's an extensive list of criteria. But they're also evaluating for the entire UC system, which is a very different scale and evaluating for our single library. So we were trying to reduce the number of criteria but in the end what we did was that each member of the group chose their top 10 criteria on ranked. And from there we developed a first round evaluation that has that an open opportunity has to pass before being subjected to the full evaluation process. So we couldn't quite get down to what we wanted for a number set of criteria. So we kind of compromised by having this kind of top 15 or so criteria that an opportunity kind of has to meet if it's applicable to move into that full evaluation. So that kind of helps potentially limit the kind of full evaluation process and lose things through the process more quickly particularly if they don't pass our initial set of criteria. So that's in theory we'll see how it works in practice and this has been an ongoing process that we haven't actually used this to evaluate anything yet but this is where we are right now. And if you're familiar with the UC system team, the workbook here is modeled very much on their format. So the next question for our group to answer is how do we gather the information we need to complete an evaluation? We've identified some documents that can serve as a starting point for this conversation and I've listed a couple of those here. So there's an infrastructure checklist out there that of course going back to University of California's evaluation request form and then we assume we'll need to kind of mold our own kind of custom checklist because we're not sure who is going to be bringing these opportunities to the table. And so we need to think about that as well and who's going to be who has to gather this information. So this is kind of the phase we're entering now and thinking about how we gather that information and had things not changed in the last month or so we would have already kind of started this process and would have gone over our criteria workbook and all of that. But that's been delayed a little bit as of right now. But in the end my hope is that we have a robust procedure for both evaluating open opportunities and justifying those opportunities that we invested in which I think in light of the current situation is going to be increasingly important that we're able to justify the things that we're using resources for. So I have to thank all the members of our scholarly communication advisory group who are all listed here, tried to make it representative of various areas of the library but folks that did have some sort of connection to our open work as well. And I have a list of resources here, some of which Diana's dropped into the chat. So there's a blog post that I wrote that kind of describes this process, the first stage of the process of creation of the statement, as well as a link to the actual statement on our website. So at this point, I think we're ready for questions if anybody has. That was great. Thank you, Tina really, really interesting to hear about that process. So, thank you so much for that presentation and to our attendees, the floor is now open for questions so please feel free to drop your questions into the q amp a box I'll also be monitoring the chat box if you prefer to type your questions or comments and there. While we're waiting for folks to type their questions and I just want to remind everyone that CNI's virtual spring meeting is ongoing through the end of May and we have quite a number of really interesting sessions lined up for you I'm just dropping in now in the chat box a direct link to the schedule for the rest of the webinars that are coming up throughout the months of April and May and I hope you'll check that out and join us for some more of our great offerings. I see we do have a question coming in through q amp a now and the question is and sorry if I missed this she says, how long did it take from, we should do this to it being in practice on the website weeks months. Right, so because we wanted to wanted it to be a really inclusive process getting feedback from anyone in the library that wanted to participate it did take months. So, we were kind of planning to have this group and then I think the choosing pathways to open access forum was in the fall of 2018. So then we spent like a month or so figuring out how we would do this process and then launched it with our beginning of January like welcome back for organizational development days with that January and then went through the process and it was completed in May. So it took us including planning probably six months, six or seven months even. Okay, thank you Tina. We have another question. This is regarding the dissemination of the statement itself. What if any plans do you have to share the open value statement with the wider campus. Are there any hopes of getting buy in from outside the library and of course you've posted it online. Have you found any links. That's a really good question. So, while we were going through this process we had an interim dean. So we finished the open value statement found out that our interim dean was going to be our dean. And then last fall went through strategic planning process where this is kind of an informative piece. So it's been on the website for a while and it informed strategic planning. Our dean had planned to in shortly after the semester ended this semester to go on kind of a tour to all of the school dean and tell them about some of our strategic planning open value statement like sort of this. Here I am. This is the new dean tour, which is obviously now on hold. But yeah, I think it would be good and we've shared it. I believe we've shared it with our faculty council library affairs committee. And so folks are kind of aware of it and I think we'll continue to try and push it out. Yeah, so we're going to be bit by bit doing that sort of outreach work. Right, of course, times being what they are things. Right, yeah, adapt. Yeah. I actually was wondering myself, you mentioned that part of the process was to solicit comments regarding caution confusion concern I was wondering what were some of those. Things that folks raised. So that's really good question. So yeah, there were certain words that people like certain words people didn't like things that people found confusing kind of the things that sticks out in my mind, I would have to go back and actually look and see what some of those things were. But the biggest conversation that sticks out in my mind that we had several times was around kind of inclusivity and diversity about like how many, how many things do we need to explicitly call out in the statement. And at what point is the, forgive me for not having better phrasing but like is the laundry list too long right and like how do we, we want to be inclusive but we also don't want half the statement to be everybody were including right. So that was one of the things that people had issues with some of the ways in which some of those things were phrased. So it was really good exercise actually for all of us to be really thoughtful about that and think about we had some really good discussions about you know like who typically gets excluded from open or from probably communication in general. And so that's the, that's the big piece that really sticks out to me that came out in sort of those caution confusion conversation. Interesting. Okay, thank you it looks like we've got a couple more questions here and one comes from Heather Joseph, who wanted, who wants to thank you for your great presentation Tina. And she asks, can you say a little more about how this statement might be used to evaluate opportunities to invest in open infrastructure open access initiatives. Yeah, so that's really our intention for this to be the foundation for that. So we have that as a foundation piece, and then a lot of the criteria that we have created to evaluate the source of opportunities are rooted in our open value statement, and in some of the stark work, and in some of the UC work that we were modeling on. So we really hope that this will be a way for us to evaluate all of those open initiatives. That was one of the other things that my Dean and I realized when we were at that forum that choosing pathways to open access forum is that we as a library have always been willing to like jump in to whatever the next kind of open initiative is right, and we have done lots of things and we do lots of things. But maybe we could have more impact. If we were able to narrow what we're investing in, whether it be money or time or people by being guided by this kind of values and what are we really trying to achieve so it's really, we hope the foundation for this work. And I kept reiterating that with our group because we don't want this to be another document that we create at the falls by the way, right, we want to continue to guide us. Hopefully that answers your question. Thank you. Another question we got is, there are a lot of opportunities for libraries to support open financially too much too many for any one institution so each has to be selective about which to support. Is it anticipated that your open value statement will guide such decisions. So, similar answer to my previous question but yes, if we're talking about financial investment. And some of the criteria of the group feels like could be applied to collections decisions around open. So we're also trying to pull that into our collections work. So, in terms of both investment in open resources and investment in vended resources, if vendors are way off from our values, do we want to continue to pay them. So the financial decisions, running the gamut of the open initiatives we've been involved in as well as we invest considerable development time in certain open source software projects. And so prioritizing those when we are potentially under resource to there. I see we have a question actually in chat which I hadn't noticed before sorry about that. Okay, this is from Greg Davis is software based on open standards and acceptable alternative to open source software. Well, that's a very good question, Greg. And one that I would defer to our advisory group on since that's not particularly my strongest area is open source kind of software piece. I know we had conversations around. There are criteria that we have developed around ensuring that things are interoperable and kind of follow standards in some way so I think open standards would definitely be better than non open standards. And so thinking about those things. Sorry, I don't really have a great answer to your question. Yeah. I think that would be part of the evaluation process. And he had an operation that does like leads all over developers is part of the group so sure have something to say there. And and Barrett has a question as well is there a hope that this will lead to or open the conversation about an institutional oh a policy. We actually already have an oh a policy and have had for a little over five years and that we celebrated the fifth anniversary of our policy in October. Well, that's great. That's one of the advantages we have in kind of starting to communicate more about the open value of the library is that there's already some faculty advocates out there around open access generally. And they're like, used to hearing from us about compliance with the way policy. So, well that helps. That's great. And from Asia Randolph Asia asks now that you've gone through this process what tips or suggestions do you have for those wanting to go through a similar process. So, I think the process are having gone through the process I think only having models to start from. A big fan of not recreating the meal you don't have to. So, adapting from others, I think was really helpful to us to kind of chart out a process. And as a starting point for criteria once we got to that point beyond the statement. One of the things for developing a statement. If you're trying to be inclusive of all staff, I think regular and frequent communication about the fact that you really want them all to have a voice in this process. We have a lot of folks in our library that even though we're really strong in that sort of open initiative area. When we started this process I feel like we still had people who didn't really understand what open was didn't feel connected to that work in any way. And so, sometimes we didn't get as many people involved in some of our feedback sessions as I would have liked, even though we kept saying like this is an opportunity for you to let us know what you think and to learn more and get more involved in this work. So I think thinking about how you communicate that and and engaging folks, but like non usual suspects in these conversations as something that I would put a lot of thought into. That's really good advice. So that's actually a really great way to close out the session. And it looks like we have exhausted our lengthy list of questions which were wonderful thank you so much to all of our questioners all of our attendees and of course Tatina for being here and chatting with us about this really interesting and really important topic. I hope you will all join me in thanking her we can't hear the dinner of applause but I know it's out there and lots of thanks coming in through through chat now. So I'm going you all for coming I appreciate it. Yes indeed. Thank you all. I also wanted to say that with this tool we have the option to open the flow well invite you all to come and chat with Tina, turn on your microphones and sort of approach the podium as it were. So at this point I'm going to close the official public version of this session I'm going to stop the recording with another thank you to Tina and if you