 I know I've very much been like that. So good afternoon. I think we're ready to get started. And first of all, I just want to thank everyone for being here this afternoon. I think this will be a very interesting conversation based on the recent AAU APLU public access to research data workshop that was held in October. I'm very, very pleased today as moderator to be here to introduce you to three key players in this work. And first, I'll just start by saying, for those of you who don't know me, my name is Maryl Kennedy, and I am the executive director of the Association of Research Libraries and one of the fortunate individuals to have attended the last workshop. So today we have three key players as I wanted to let you know. The first is Casey Redd, who's the Assistant Vice President of STEM Education Policy at the Association of Public Land Grant Universities, and Katie Steen, who's the Policy Association of American Universities. Both Casey and Katie were key individuals responsible for the recent workshop on public access and research data and are working as we speak, not right now, but working as we speak to take us to the next step. So I think very, very important people for you to ask a lot of questions of. I also wanted to introduce Tyler Walters, who is Dean of Libraries at the Virginia Tech University. And he was a member of the Public Access to Research Data Working Group, so the group that actually put forth the recommendations that led up to the workshop. And so I'm thrilled that he is also able to join us today. So if I could just get a show of hands of how many of you either were at the workshop or know of the workshop and the recommendations. Oh, fabulous. OK, good. So I think you will find the updates very interesting. Before we go too much further, I wanted to move to the next slide and tell you a little bit about the area, the context in which we are having this conversation today. And many of you will probably be familiar with this, but just to set this in motion for you. First of all, the AAU and APLU recommendations came out in November of 2017. And I think one of the key messages that they had was that although is general, and I'm quoting, although there is general agreement about the value of increased public access to data, ensuring such expanded access will require a significant culture shift at universities and among their faculty, thoughtfully and carefully crafted new government policies and practices and investment in the infrastructure required to make data publicly accessible. So this is really the heart of what we are trying to do here. It is from these recommendations that the workshop took place in October, where 30 teams from across the United States and Canada came together representing vice provosts, presidents of research, CIOs, data scientists, university librarians, US federal agencies, and funders. They came with three key things that they were looking to achieve. One was to identify the challenges and the opportunities for public access based on fair data, to begin to set plans to advocate and to advance for greater access to research findings and data, both in an institution but also between institutions, and really to work together across this group of stakeholders to establish common approaches for data sharing. It was a very interactive session, which I'm sure you know because many of you were there. ARL was very honored to be included along with other groups such as Spark and the Digital Curation Network. And at the same time, in 2018, the National Academy's issued its open science by design realizing a vision for 21st century research. Now, the focus of this was somewhat broader than on research data. It was focused on really the summary of the state of the research lifecycle as it pertains to provocation, ideation, knowledge generation, validation, dissemination, and preservation, and put forth some recommendations of how to advance it. Open science largely focused on these same key audiences that were focusing on research data. Meanwhile, in our world, things are changing rapidly with open science. A lot of it emanating, as it seems, from the European Union in terms of open access 2020 and now plan ass with its focus on journals. This is evolving into a global conversation with funding agencies such as the Welcome Trust and the Gates Foundation standing behind plan ass, as well as China recently indicating its support for it. But it's very important not to imagine that these are all the same. They're not. The research data is one element. Open science is the full research lifecycle. And at least at plan ass in this point is really focused primarily on the journals. And so while they are interrelated because research data does lead to journal articles, it is important not to conflate them. So with that, I think I will turn this over to the panelists and we'll start with our round of questions. I'm going to ask that you hold your questions till the end of, we have three questions until the end of those questions. And then we do hope very much that you will engage in a dialogue with us. Thank you very much. So our first question is, given the AAU and APLU workshop and the other initiatives that are focused on supporting institutional collaborations, what do we see as the primary opportunities and what advice would you give to institutions looking to make progress on this front? Before I answer the questions, we're just going to take a second to tell you a little bit about what APLU and AAU are if you're sort of curious. So I'm the Assistant Vice President of STEM Education Policy at the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities. We're based here in DC, we're a higher education association. I think we're at 237, 238 research, public research universities, land grant colleges and university systems. So I like to say, but don't tell my president that we are, you can think of us as a professional society for presidents and provost and research vice presidents and chief financial officer. So pretty much all the senior administrators, we convene in regular kinds of ways over the years, over the year and so I'll let you tell me what AAU is. So the Association of American Universities, AAU, we're also a higher education association representing the presidents and chancellors of 62 of the leading research universities in North America. We've got two members in Canada and 60 in the U.S. similar to APLU who we of course partner with a lot. We convene those senior administrators and other constituency groups across campus on important issues and of course public access to data and publications is one of those. I'll also say we're in Canada, Mexico and there are 30 publics or R members. So a lot of overlap. So we work closely on a lot of issues together because in things that impact research universities, impact both of our memberships and I would say now it's been four years at independent summer meetings when we convene the research vice presidents, the senior research officers, this making data publicly accessible scared the bejesus out of our research vice president. So how are we gonna do this? So we really came at it in the beginning from a compliance mindset, but I have been pleasantly surprised that the communities we've been able to draw together have a broader mindset. It's not always about compliance and really thinking about how do you talk about data as an asset? How do you help faculty members be able to do this work? What are the supports we can provide? So first of all, also let me say the thank you. So the workshop was funded by the National Science Foundation and I'm pretty sure our program officer is in the room. So thank you National Science Foundation. Beth Plale was the funder. And as Mary Lee has said, sort of our plan was a little bit, was three-fold. One, to really bring institutions together to learn from one another, to have federal agency representatives in the room to really hear about what's happening on the ground and what the real challenges are. And then really to encourage those cross-campus teams that we brought together to leave with an action plan for high priority action. So we sort of had the day and a half where we tried to scaffold some so they could talk about the challenges and the opportunities and then sort of what were the big areas that they were interested in. I'm gonna pause there and say a little bit. I also wanna set a low bar for us that I would say we're not experts in all the tools and resources for making data publicly accessible. What we are expert in is thinking about how to use the leverage of our associations and talking to senior administrators to really bring this to their attention in ways that institutions can learn from one another. And so I'm gonna take the second part of the question first, which is sort of, we've heard a little bit of this already today, especially from Clifford Lynch about you really wanna have a holistic kind of mindset. So the strength of our associations is we can pull and we're turf neutral in a lot of ways. But we talked to senior administrators so we can encourage them to bring the right kinds of stakeholders together. So you can think about this as an opportunity when AAU and APLU are working in this space. If you're one of our member campuses, you don't have to be, but it helps to say, hey, to your campus, there was this workshop that AAU and APLU put together. Penn State was at it, why weren't we? Or we were at that last, a month ago, when AAU and APLU come in a year to ask us where we are, what are we gonna be able to say to them? So you can use the, when we step into this space and try to pull institutions together and what your peers are doing to ask your campus leadership, where are we in this conversation? There's also, because the National Academies has a report out, that's another great opportunity to say, as an excellent research university, are we excellent in open scholarship? Are we living up to some of the plan that the National Academies has laid out for the community? So just look for those opportunities to have what I say is old conversations in new ways and to sort of say who needs to be at the table for this conversation. I mean, it's a great leverage point that we're all gonna have to make this data publicly available, right? So our funders really care. So our research vice presidents and our provost, they really care about this question. So let me just make sure I got and got all the institutional change stuff off the table first. At the workshop, we had an application process and in the applications, which we will be able to make some of them available because we asked the institutions who was willing to share them. So in our workshop report, we'll have about, I don't know, 12 that we'll be able to share. But of the 30 that we got, about 10 institutions already, or is it 11, already had sort of cross campus task force and another 14 were sort of proto, they had started conversations and they had sort of people that they were interested in bringing to the workshop. But by the end of the workshop, I would say every single institution recognized the need for having a cross campus team. Another sort of main point that was that, so what I did is maybe I should pause here before I get into the action plans because I was gonna let you talk about federal agencies. Okay, I'm gonna pause a minute before I sort of unpack what we learned from the action plans and turn it over to Katie. So in terms of opportunities, wanted to take a moment here before we talk about the campus action plans that came out of this and talk about the federal agency participation that we had at the workshop, which we were really excited to have. We had representatives from six federal agencies. So we have the National Institutes of Health, of course the National Science Foundation. We had NIST, which I almost always forget what that stands for, but the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. And we had a panel in which three of those agencies were represented, NIH, DOE, and NSF, where the audience and the campus teams were able to ask them questions. And they gave a little update about where they at in terms of implementing the White House OSTP memo that requires them to have public access plans. And of course, where do they see things moving forward? And then also the other federal agency representatives were kind of sprinkled about throughout the small team conversations that were going on. This really gave, of course, the feedback we heard from the federal agencies and from the participants. It gave them an opportunity as agency staff to engage with their grantees and people that are involved in the research pipeline in ways that they don't often get to do. And in some cases, it was very high-level agency staff that are involved in some of the policymaking at the agency. So they were getting to hear firsthand from each other some of the challenges and opportunities that they actually face on the ground. So I want to talk about the challenges, I think, that we still face moving forward and then how some of those could actually turn into opportunities. So the first is that the issues with compliance or questions that grantees might have and they're talking with their program officer, it doesn't necessarily make it all the way up to the chain to the higher echelons of the agency. So that was a challenge there and that was helpful for some of the agency staff to kind of hear that. The second is that grantees want strict standards on certain things and they want flexibility on other things. So that is still kind of being figured out and I think what we've also seen is that that varies very much by discipline in terms of standards that are already out there and standards that need to be set through communities coming together and discussing them. So I think that balancing act is something that we need more convenings and that was something that definitely came out of this. And I think all of the participants, agency side and from the institutional side agreed that more convenings in workshops like this for them to be able to talk to each other and hear the opportunities and challenges would be helpful. And also the areas of data access are constantly changing. There's still a lot that we don't know and we may know something now and in 10 years or so it might look different and a lot of those platforms are still being developed. And then finally of course the resources that are needed on both the agency side and the institution side to really come up with an ecosystem where the public can truly access this data and use it to their benefit. But with that there comes a lot of opportunities as well. As I mentioned, because the agency staff found it so beneficial there was an interest in continuing to do this. So I hope that we will see more convenings either on the agency side or the associations continuing to bring institutional folks together and the agencies getting to participate in that. Also when the agency requests information like the recent NIH request for information on their proposed data access and sharing policies and that RFI is actually due today, we will be submitting it and I think it's really helpful and I hope that a lot of institutions are submitting their perspective. And what we have asked in our joint letter with APLU and the Council on Governmental Relations and COGAR is for the agencies to have more convenings similar to the workshop or at least create avenues in which there can be more discussion before the agency comes out with actual provisions and policies because we just found that very helpful and one of the biggest things we learned is that we need to have more of these. And with that I just wanna end on that the agencies have a lot of convening power and although institutional change, there's a lot of factors that go into it but compliance and getting nods from the agency is a big part of that. So I think them helping bring together some of these folks that don't talk every day on campus with the help of the associations is gonna be really important moving forward and we look forward to continuing to work with them there on that opportunity. So I sort of forgot the final point that I wanted to make on culture change or institutional change, ways that you can sort of make progress on your campus. One is these across campus teams. A lot of the teams at the workshop really wanna look at their data policy and revise those so using that as an opportunity and then as Katie has also mentioned, sometimes there are these responses that come out from NIH and NSF. This is another opportunity to sort of bring people to the table and be like, what is our response gonna be? So just look for those kinds of opportunities but that is what we're trying to now think about what the next steps after the workshop so we're really interested in sort of hearing your ideas about ways that we can be catalytic in this space along with ARL. So I thought what I thought might be interesting would be for me to try to quickly go through some of a synthesis of what we saw coming out of the action plans. I did this like three days ago because I had to talk here and so this is still pretty raw and pretty like unfiltered and it hasn't gone through the workshop planning committee at all so hopefully it stays in the room but whatever, there's nothing too privileged in here. Okay, so we use this as a framing in the workshop sort of four main buckets and so that also really I guess drove some of how the action when they thought about their action plans what that looked like. So just I'm gonna tell you what those buckets are so you keep those as lenses. One was policies, practices, compliance. One was technology, platforms, last infrastructure and kind of human personnel in this space. I'll pause here to say I didn't hear a whole bunch at the meeting about sort of technology infrastructure. People really talked about the personnel piece and the sort of the expertise needed from the library staff and sort of those spaces. The third bucket was training and rewarding faculty. There was a lot that was talked about in the space and then cost and funding model and that was really woven throughout a lot of the conversations too. So I would say the three main things that were the most common across all action plans were to update their data policy to improve graduate and faculty training and then the need for more communication and outreach and just making people aware of what already exists and then a few institutions. So this wasn't common across but it was in the communication outreach. We really wanted to reinforce the story that data is an asset. So that was an interesting point. So on the policies, practices and compliance the pieces that came across in their action plans were things like cross campus, creating a cross campus task force, updating the data policy. Three institutions even said we needed a data strategic plan. So more than just a policy but really a strategic plan and then one institution Duke listed as an asset the data management, data sharing was already part of their institutional strategic plan. So maybe that's an opportunity for us to follow up with Duke and be like tell us more. And then there was some things that kind of went in the workforce and compliance space. So for example, data workflow and data management compliance tracking processes for the different federal funding agencies. So almost a lot of the institutions had some nod to that or seeing the importance of sort of workflow as being a high priority. So the training and rewarding faculty I think all of the institutions saw this as being important but only about seven institutions explicitly mentioned it in their plan. And so many when they talked about faculty rewards and training they really were most of them were focused on the training part but I did pull out a few that were talking about the rewards part I thought that might be interesting. So the most ambitious campus had ensure shared data are visible on faculty profiles and they received credit and P&T processes. But I note that this was the 10th on the 11th of an 11 number list and most of the plans had like three and this institution had 11. So they were really thoughtful about what the order of activities needed to be. Things like ensure PIs are complying with the DMP, define a university policy and guidance for data sharing, ability to mint DOIs, develop guidance and workflows. So that's number four. So it's sort of they really laid out we have to have a way to sort of provide guidance and tracking and know how to assign credit before we can sort of look at the faculty rewards. So thoughtful but in some ways they came up with the best plan possible to really start to try to unpack that. The other institutions who talked about faculty rewards and training were one talked about educating promotion committees, identifying sort of badging and certification. So there were some of these ideas of trying to find ways to sort of provide other kinds of credit that weren't necessarily looking at promotion and tenure. Then for infrastructure, a big focus was really on library personnel and the support services that they provide. And so the things that kind of came across were tools and resources like boilerplate DMPs, identifying trusted repositories, highlighting good practice. An idea that and it was mostly library as the one stop shop but I think if I go back and look more closely it might not have been situated just in the library. I think from what we've heard here it may be sort of thinking about how you can bring together the right kinds of centers and institutes and offices to create this one stop shop. The need to resource the library was in some plans. The need for the institution to help with data deposition and providing an infrastructure portal to research data and I think this is once again kind of the one stop shop. So if a faculty member comes to some place they know where to go, where it's supported all the data. And then odds and ends and this is the last little bit before I turn it over to Tyler is just some maybe only one or two institutions mentioned these pieces but I didn't want to lose these ideas because I thought they were kind of cool. So data asset audit. So a couple of institutions felt like they needed to even get a handle on what they actually already had. A disciplinary curation committee. So starting to have these conversations in their own institution. Some noted they need to advocate for federal harmonization of policies. One institution really felt they needed to do more institutional senior administration buy-in. So not just faculty buy-in but getting more support from their institutional leadership. Serving faculty and departments about their data curation needs. And then one model was looking at their undergraduate education pipeline and can they create some educational opportunities where they tap into this interest to do some data curation. So having sort of a bridging of these two pieces. So those were at least in this very fast last few days sort of analysis of the action plans. Thank you. So if we could move to. Sure. You want to take a shot? Sorry. So Tyler, given that you've been in this from the beginning. Where do you see the biggest needs and challenges in institutional optimization? So we have these lots of ideas and people obviously have gone back to their institutions to work on them but what are the most important opportunities to address right now? Okay, well first off I just wanted to explain to people some of my context with this. I am a member of the AAU APLU Public Access Working Group. I'm here to kind of give an institutional or university level perspective to the work and I would say what's really important in my mind is that the working group members served as reviewers of the applications for the workshop. So I spent a fair bit of time looking at those and even just that prior to the workshop you can glean a lot about what's going on out there and what the challenges and difficulties are. Clearly, with that set up I'd say clearly the number one challenge in every applicant. And so not just attendees, every applicant wrote down what's your challenge? What are you struggling with? Everybody said faculty participation or faculty behavior, faculty culture, some phrase like that. Yes some of you are shaking your head or even chuckling a little bit. And as we all know I mean changing culture is a years long process. So this is not the kind of thing that you're gonna change just by throwing out policy. Of course infrastructure and services and support where I think we're very much mentioned in these applications in terms of challenge but definitely the faculty participation was a very big issue going forward. So I think that's both challenge and opportunity I think for the teams at these universities who participated in the workshop to continue to talk, communicate, compare notes, kind of share lessons learned on what they've been doing on their campus to see what helps to work with moving the needle on faculty participation. Rewards I think in that regard is something that comes up things like, I know some people have talked about well data or information about data should be linked in a faculty profile an official profile that's utilized by the university. Maybe this could be somehow rewarded within the promotion and tenure process. I mean we know that's difficult but I think we also know ultimately if we're gonna see rewards for this kind of work promotion and tenure, more than likely is gonna have to be taken into consideration going forward. It did want to say some of the, I think some of the continued challenges beyond faculty participation I think really deals with the competing priorities. In particular, well I think everybody is competing priorities but I think the most articulate on those is the senior research officers. And they will of course remind us that yes we need to address open data policy but that also competes with time and attention for policy setting and implementation around various levels of confidential data. Research development programs, industry partnerships, their incubators, tech transfer, et cetera. That's where their head is also at. So I mean the good news is SROs are aware and are paying attention to the open data need and policy need but they will bring those kinds of things up too about their research so it's something to keep in mind that that's some context to be thinking about. Really think the most important opportunity here really is the building of these cross-departmental teams from each institution and getting these people together. I know when we first talked about the workshop and start putting the pieces together we started thinking about who should we see from campuses coming forward. So we know that there's the provost office, again the SRO, the CIO or Research Computing Office, library, legal, maybe there's faculty there or deans, maybe there's research institute directors. So there's a lot of people that come together and I think we realize that perhaps one of the biggest value adds going into this is simply assembling these teams, these people from these kinds of offices and having them leave their campuses, maybe put their cell phones away and focus on the problem at hand and working together as teams. So we definitely see that as a real value add. I think that's an opportunity. I know in our case we've gone back to our campus, our team and looked at how do we continue in terms of Virginia Tech. We have a governance system, so we have a commission on research that's led largely by faculty and we are right, I think we have submitted now a official proposal and request to kind of anoint our work group in terms of being an official group within the university that's looking at open data policy development. So we're pretty certain that's going to go through in good shape. I think the other opportunity that the workshop has afforded that we've heard a little bit about already but the thing to keep in mind is I really feel this interaction that we've seen between the institutions and members from federal agencies with policies has been incredibly valuable. Both were at this workshop and I've seen in working group meetings prior to the workshop where we have invited federal agency personnel to come in and talk with us. This has been a leading dilemma and again challenge and opportunity for us is we have agencies who set policies, we have universities that are trying to comply with policies and the more we can kind of compare notes and talk with one another, some of these policies have been out for a while now. Here again, what's the lessons learned from the policy implementation? What are we experiencing? I think in the end, what we're all looking for is good quality data that's open to researchers, both the primary research group as well as future research groups for reuse. So how do we get there? That's the point of the policy and I think if we all continue to talk about these things and think about how do policies kind of evolve over time and then practice and implementation, how that goes along to make sure those things happen is really I think the end game in all of this. Some of the other things that I know have come up has been kind of this notion of policy practice disconnect and I was kind of getting at that just a little bit but I'm thinking really at the university level, how do we get policies to address all the matters that need to be addressed? And here again, I think on the campus, how many strategic fora do we have to talk about open data policy and have the players from these offices actually in the same room attending a symposium or a workshop or an open access week panel or something? So, well, there's once a year, right? An open access week panel. So there's not a whole lot of that. So there's a lot of questions that come up, a lot of challenges and opportunity going forward. Of course, cost to all of this is something that's brought up and it is kind of interesting when you start thinking about the cost to all of this. I mean, of course, costing up personnel is not that difficult of a thing but some things like compliance tracking. How do we know when we follow through on a data management plan? We need this kind of tracking so we know what's going on. So what's the cost of developing that and implementing it? And so we don't really know. So it's hard to tell in fairly precise terms what the university's expenses are going to be around this particularly in terms of tracking compliance and the policy development around it. Thank you, Tyler. So we'll move to our third question and then we'll open it up to the audience. So I guess the question really is very simply, what are the next steps for a EU APLU? Well, certainly the first one we'll be writing a report to NSF which we're currently in the processes of doing that and we will be working with our working group on public access that Tyler is on and the kind of the steering group that helped plan the workshop because Casey and I weren't at every table and so we wanna make sure that we surface all of the things that the steering group, the folks on the public access workshop that were there heard. And then after that, which this will help kind of inform more of our next steps that we may not even have in our minds today but is the campus site visit. So as part of our NSF funding, we also got some money for campuses that attended the workshop to go visit campuses that could not attend. We had 52 applications and we could only convene 30 institutional teams. So there's a significant amount of interest in learning about what happened at the workshop. So we will work with those teams that came to DC to go out and visit the other campuses, talk about what they learned and help them develop their own campus action plans. Katie just says, I was supposed to write up our last conference call where we decided what the site business would look like and I didn't do that. So, but we had a discussion about this might be a two way opportunity. So sort of leaving it up. So it might be more valuable to invite an institution that was at the workshop to come to your campus or it might be more valuable for you as an institution to go to a campus that was at the workshop. So we're, I don't know, I have to write those notes up and figure out what we agreed to. But we're looking at both, really having the institutions that apply think about what's most useful for them. And then also future multi-institutional workshops. As I mentioned earlier, there's a lot of appetite for that. So that will certainly be something that we think about, what does that mean? Do we convene just people in a certain role? We'd love to work with other partners like ARL and others that are interested in helping us do that. But that will certainly be on the docket for us. And then of course, continuing to engage with federal agencies, institutions and the federal agencies have the same goal here. And so it's just a matter of getting us on the same page and implementing it and working together. And then also just some of the workflow systems that the institutions need to kind of help develop. And see this really as, and this is what came up in the workshop a lot too, is this is the way that you do research. This should be a part of doing research. Instead of thinking of it as some separate thing you have to do, it should be in your general workflow. And that was something that a lot of people agreed upon. And in terms of culture change, I think that certainly takes some time, but that's something that we agree we should strive toward. And so campuses thinking about that issue when they're developing policies is gonna be important going forward.