 Welcome everybody. Thanks for being with us today. I'm Cliff Lynch I'm the director of the Coalition for networked information and I will be introducing this session. This is one of a very small number of plenary sessions, which is part of the second day of the plenary days of the CNI fall 2020 member meeting, which is taking place virtually. A couple of mechanical things we are recording the session it will be available after the session. We do have closed captioning available please turn that on if it's helpful. There is a chat box and you're welcome to use that throughout the session. There's also a Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen. You can use that to pose questions for the presenters at any point during the presentation. We'll address all the questions that have come in at the end of the session when Diane Goldenberg Hart from CNI will moderate a Q&A session. Let me just very briefly introduce this topic. I think SNR has been doing a whole series of important interrelated studies around the academic research enterprise around the services that support research around the role of the chief research officer in various kinds of institutions. They've done it through analysis. They've done it through interviews. It's very rich work in an area that I think is largely under-examined and really a bit misunderstood by many people outside of the, well, inside and outside of the research enterprise actually. Some of the roles and activities in here are quite a mystery to many people and I think that library leadership, for example, while they have certainly realized that effective relationships and working together with the chief research officer and their team is essential, don't necessarily fully understand that role and what it does. So I thought that this and the same thing, by the way, should be said of CIOs at many of our institutions. I thought that it would be very worthwhile for us to hear in a plenary session in some depth from the team at SNR or at least some of the team that's been working on this over the past months. I have to say I've followed this work particularly closely both because of our interest in research support and what that comprises and how it's delivered, but also because of the work we've done on research continuity and resilience through our executive roundtables. So I think you'll find this extremely informative and with that I'd like to welcome Jane Ruddackie, Oya Rieger and Roger Schoenfeld, all of whom I think are pretty well known to our community and thank them for joining us to fill us in on all this work and I'm going to turn it over to Roger who will start off the discussion. Thank you so much Clifford. Thank you for the invitation to present this this work today, but maybe most importantly thank you to CNI for recognizing and foreseeing the importance of work on the research enterprise this year. Clifford the the executive roundtable that you mentioned for for folks who haven't had a chance to read the notes from that it's a it's a very very the report from that it's a very very important piece of work and the efforts around continuity are ones that we've we've really benefited from and being members of the of this participants in the CNI community this this this year. It's just one one example of the kind of continued importance that I think a lot of us have found from from the CNI community this year so so just a real recognition for for that. Ian and Oya will be speaking in just a moment and and and so so I don't want to hold things up but I do want to start with just a working definition of the research enterprise. I'll be talking about here the systems the services staffing that that of the work of the university to generate knowledge, and, and a lot of that in practice has to do with supporting scientific research and so you will hear a real focus on that in a lot of our discussions today. Our presentation is drawn as Clifford mentioning from a number of projects we've worked on but principally from from to so in the next slide I'll mention one of them which is the senior research I just published this earlier this month and this was a project that Oya and I worked on, most closely in which we interviewed 44 senior research officers the vice presidents and vice provost for research across some of the largest and most research intensive universities in the US. And then the other project is is one that Jane really like Jane and I worked on which which looked at the impacts of coven on the research enterprise. A large scale landscape review of everything that we could find that that that spoke to those impacts, and we're going to weave together some of the findings and analysis from both of these projects we really tried to separate in the reports. Here's what we know about the impacts of coven versus here are some of the larger kind of strategic and organizational directions, but in this presentation we're going to try to blend blend those two together because, of course, both of those are incredibly important. So, so I will just say a word or two about the presentation as we'll give it I'm going to just offer a couple of words about the senior research officer. Then the role itself Jane will talk about the financial framework, and then I will talk about some of the important findings that came out of our conversations with the senior research officers external funding research support research data research analytics. So I'll close with some, some observations about compliance and human impacts. We expect to have plenty of time for questions and discussions so please please get, get thinking about about those already. So this the role of the senior research officer. This will be very familiar to some but maybe a little bit less familiar to others. So in the next slide what I'll show is that is that this is a big job. It's, it's one that has been increasingly centralized across at the university level in recent years so that today at most universities. The role has a unitary scope in the sense that there's a single senior research officer for the university as a whole. This has been the product of a number of reorganizations. In the universities, in terms of staffing and reporting and so forth. It's also the result, increasingly of an interest in systems integration so that data don't have to be rekeyed and so forth. So that services can be provided centrally. This role overseas hundreds and up to more than 1000 employees at the universities at many of the universities that we that we profiled. This is a, this is an academic and administrative role. It is. It's an academic and administrative role leadership role. So it includes, it includes everything from compliance and research safety research support services and enablement fundraising and other forms of revenue generation, and also a variety at some interdisciplinary academic centers that are part of this role. It has the role has different titles. So we can see in some institutions that that it's a it's a vice president sometimes it's a vice provost sometimes it reports to the president or chancellor sometimes it reports to the provost. Typically, these roles are dotted line to some degree across both of those two organizations but when it reports the president when it has a vice president title is more likely to have other kinds of responsibilities whether it's innovation government relations communications, etc. And then finally, we developed, we kind of assessed that there were two different models for these roles, all of the incumbents are highly successful scientists or administrators typically. Some of them are following more of a professional model where they've been the department chair, then they were the dean of the dean of a school now their device provost and one day they might like to be the provost or the president of an institution. In other cases, they are following much more of a of a service model where they will be taking a three year term or five year term let's say, as a faculty member, often continuing to run a lab of their own, and really seeing themselves in the voice of the faculty into the research administration apparatus. So there's some there's as many differences as there are similarities underneath this term senior research officer. From here I'm now going to turn things over to Jane who's going to really kind of connect the human piece into the financial in which this role and its work should be understood. Thanks Roger. If you could go to the next slide please. Okay. So, first before we dive into discussion. It's really important to take a look at university revenue streams and universities dependencies on certain types of revenue, as everything that we talk about today can be affected by this financial framework. So, as you'll see from this chart there are really just a few main revenue streams for us higher education. And as many of us know, several revenue sources for research universities have been and are being negatively affected by the pandemic. First, revenue from hospitals and healthcare providers has taken a significant hit due to the cancellation of elective procedures that we saw in the spring. For large research universities that have medical schools and hospital systems under the purview of the university system, the revenue losses in the spring grew rapidly. What the pandemic has shown very clearly is that hospitals have the ability to be a substantial drain on the universities that own them. Second, we all witnessed as enrollments for the fall 2020 semester dropped and thereby tuition and fees, or the largest stream of revenue for colleges and universities decreased. What's interesting about this revenue stream is that historically in an economic downturn or recession enrollment at colleges and universities actually increases, but this has not been the case during the pandemic. We have especially seen enrollment of international students decrease, which is troublesome for some universities in terms of revenue, because notoriously these students pay more or in most cases pay full price for tuition. Additionally, more financial aid has been needed by students than in many years past. Finally, there was a significant amount of refunds on auxiliary fees, which are things like room and board meal plans, parking passes and so on, all of which are part of what make up this other category from the graph on this slide. Both these refunds took place in the spring of 2020, and the financial impacts on institutions from the loss of auxiliary revenue was and is material for many. This means millions of dollars in refunds left holes in universities operating revenue budgets and decreased housing and other auxiliary revenue has topped the list of factors that influence the 2021 fiscal year budget for many institutions. Despite while many different sources of revenue have declined externally funded research which is this green grant circle that you're now seeing on the chart has remained a strong revenue source with no immediate risks to its continuation. On top of this external federal agencies have seemed to be relatively financially stable as well. One of the risks that universities had to be extremely cognizant about is that in most cases, universities do not make money from externally funded scientific research, but rather in fact this research is very much seen as a loss for universities as they have to funnel money into these projects. The unfunded costs of research are then subsidized through university schools, departments and and other contributions, thereby spending funds that are coming from negatively impacted revenue streams. As we all know, research experienced an unprecedented halt due to COVID. These temporary closures of research labs at universities not only impacted research progress, but it also had the effect of adding some undue pressures around the research office and indirect costs that needed to come in and be spent. So, on average, around a third of most federal grants are allocated towards indirect costs and a portion of these indirect costs end up going towards the research office where they're spent. This money that comes into the research office from indirect costs from externally funded grants, most time scientific grants, goes towards ensuring the needs of the current research portfolio, but also to its aspirations. It also helps fund needed compliance measures, proposal development, administrative costs, and so on. So even when labs were shut down for a period of time in the spring and summer, direct expenses such as travel and equipment or materials for a project were unspent, but they're very well may have been a corresponding slowdown in the recognition of indirect costs from these projects in the research office. At the same time, many institutions and universities still had many expenses to pay for that are normally covered by said indirect costs, such as research support services. Well, as I mentioned just a little bit ago externally funded research revenue has thus far been relatively stable. There has been substantial risks to scientific research support and capital expenditure, due to the inability to cross subsidize what would be considered a normal amount of capital from instruction and healthcare. These budgetary risks to research support are really important to consider, especially when it comes to research cores as research cores are probably one of the most enabling shared services that senior research officers worry about. Most importantly, why this is of such concern is due to the fact that research cores enable capital investments at a level that would be impossible within a single externally funded research project or a single research lab. Finally, as we know from the recent library survey on library directors that SNR published last week. Most research libraries are receiving budget cuts. It became clear from interviews with senior research officers that even though revenues from research activities are steady, and in many cases growing, some institutions are fully expecting potentially devastating budget cuts to the research office. Next slide please. So, as we all know, scientific research was significantly impacted by the rapid shutdown of all non essential and non COVID-19 related research. Thousands of research were researchers were left scrambling trying to figure out what to do to preserve their work. With research halted it was assumed that the salaries for researchers would also be suspended. However, several White House Office of Management and Budget memos came out that ended up authorizing a few short term exceptions to the guidelines in how federal research dollars could be spent. The personnel costs normally being the largest share of any federal grant institutions and researchers were allowed to continue to draw salaries from their grants, even when their labs were shut down. There were also other allowances put in place. Unfortunately, the goal of these policies was to attempt to preserve as much of the US research enterprise as possible in the face of unprecedented disruptions. However, it's to be noted that these funding flexibilities were not extended indefinitely, which in many cases may have led universities to begin reopening their labs sooner than they would have liked as federal agencies such as the NSF and the NIH, could no longer continue to pay researchers salaries with no research actually taking place. In many ways, this meant that externally funded research activity and the continued need for capital had a really powerful and significant influence in shaping university activity and policies surrounding institutions, allowing labs to reopen and researchers to return back to work physically on campus. So with this financial framework in mind, I am now going to turn it over to Oya to discuss findings from the senior research officers report more in depth. Good afternoon. It's always a great pleasure and an honor to join the CNI forum. So, our interviews with 44 senior research officers from the US took place in the thick of the pandemic. So as you can imagine, the individuals we talked with were getting ready to start an unprecedented semester. They seemed to welcome when we asked them to tell us about their directions, challenges and priorities beyond the intense stage they were going through. So we would like to share some of our key findings, starting with funding. What excites a senior research officer is by all means the vision of creating knowledge, educating future researchers, getting the innovation out there. But to accomplish these goals, webbing is an extremely important goal. As one of the interviewees said, research has turned into a multi hundred million dollar source of revenue. And a range of strategies to maintain and further do a look at the university's revenue base and business model. Many research officers have funding related performance goals. The metrics used include the number and dollar value of proposal submitted or funded the percentage and distribution of scholars that submit proposals. For instance, beyond the STEM fields as many universities are interested in multi disciplinary work. External competition related to peer institutions could be a part of the metrics too. Well, it's more efficient to implement a large grant than a small one. So with increasing focus on taking on grand challenges, interdisciplinary large scale projects are gaining more and more importance. These projects not only require people skills in brokering partnerships, but also an effective and efficient service structure to support the proposal development and implementation processes. Clearly, the research configuration is evolving. For many universities continue to rely on distributed legacy support structures at the college and sometimes even at the department level. So trying to do all up common and central services is indeed a big task. Interviewees told us that they need to avoid over reliance on the federal government. Corporate and philanthropic partnerships are increasingly essential. Not only to diversify sources but also to fund prior the areas outside federal agencies. For instance, climate change or stem cell research. There were two incentives for working with companies. For instance, engaging in collaborative research, possible funds and scholarships, and also very importantly, creating internships and career tracks for graduates. Interviewees stressed the significance of translating research and innovations into products within the state, especially at public institutions. Contributing to the local economy is important in generating public awareness and political support for research activities. Research support. One of our questions during the interviews was how are the services that support research such as shared facilities research computing and the library are evolving in your institution. Research support. When we say research support. One of the very important research support services across virtually every conversation we had was the research course. Jane also referred to the research core so let me just offer a very quick definition. These facilities are centralized shared resources. Access to instruments, technologies, testing and related services. And very importantly, they provide expert technical and consultancy services. And in this case, you know the PIs and researchers, they can focus on their own areas of expertise and rely on knowledge and assistance from research core staff. And these facilities rely on cutting edge instruments and requires significant capital capital investments. Research cores are important to be competitive. While these units often report up to the senior research officer. Their business approaches vary and involve complex configurations of funds staffing and organizational models. You probably have noticed that as we were, as we were asking about research support. We especially listed the library as one of the service providers. However, the library was seldom mentioned. Many of you is described as their research support configuration priorities and challenges. When we probed and asked them specifically several mentioned that the library was evolving. Sometimes they made references to indicate their awareness of budgetary pressures, especially with electronic resources, they seem to be aware. Let me share some findings related to research data. Well, it's clear from many interview interviews that data services were largely distributed and often actually uncoordinated function within the university. These officers really do not feel that there's a blueprint for how to do so. But they feel that none of their peers have figured it out yet either. There was a sense that treating public access as only a mandate was limiting. Instead, researchers needed to be helped to see public access as part of the university's responsibility to make the products of research more accessible and shareable. We were talking about data in general, or specifically about research data. We really noticed that they are mindful of social technical issues, such as security privacy confidentiality research ethics quality of data reliability of data, so on so forth. These issues are very important for them, perhaps even more important than openness. Software that support research data gathering and analysis, such as lab notebooks and survey platforms did not seem to rise their attention. Many of them were familiar with electronic laboratory notebooks as a category, but it did not seem to be at their level. They were mindful of disciplinary differences, and some were skeptical of their broad use and value, even the disciplinary differences. I'll just say a few words about the library's role as the topic entered our discussions while we were discussing research data. There were certainly some references to the library within the context of research data and workflow tools. For instance, some of the officers either have tested or were getting ready to test digital lab notebooks in their university, their offices or their universities. Several interviewees were familiar with the library's role in creating research data management plans. Actually, you know, one sentiment I would, I think represented by one comment was that implementing research data management plans was easier said than done. And a couple of interviewees actually refer to the aspirational nature of the library taking the leadership in research data stewardship. They were really mindful and they were making these remarks, especially given the broad range of skills and resources needed and what is already available and the distributed expertise within their universities. Research analytics. So whatever questions involved research analytics and which is actually a quick definition, the curation aggregation and utilization of information about research activities and outputs. Publications, data sets, patents, grants, academic service and honors just just to name a few. These interviewees were skeptical about the continuing role and importance of traditional metrics. They seem to be much more interested in assessing impact, such as innovations translated into products, jobs created and life saved. They are full of disciplinary differences. Some feel that research analytics systems often fail in incorporating contextual or institutional practices and values. We also asked them if they have a research information management system, how it is working. They are generally familiar with research information systems such systems. The material is not engaged with them. In some cases, the program is delegated to a subsidiary office. Or in some cases, the program is or some cases actually they understand the importance of data driven decision making and the role research analytics can play, but they don't feel that they have access to the required information and analysis to support their purposes. When it comes to managing research information, there were really a handful of success stories. One of the impediments seems to be the distributed nature of responsibilities. Again, we kept on running into this actually distributed nature, and also challenges in assigning responsibilities and coordinating efforts in such an autonomous environment. Many expressed a considerable level of dissatisfaction with their institutional research information management systems. Actually, this is another occasion when the library was mentioned as running the university's rim system. Actually, the system was mainly perceived as an externally facing communication tool, rather than an information management mechanism system in support of their work. I think at this point, I'm going to turn over to Roger to continue with findings from the senior research officer study. So now we come to the boring part compliance. In fact, in fact, this was not a boring topic at all in the conversations of senior research officers. This is one of the themes that came up most frequently with them in discussing their strategic priorities. So we can go on to the next slide. What was what was quite clear was that when they say compliance, there's of course many things that they're talking about many issues that they oversee, but easily the most important of these in terms of new areas that's really come up as a strategic are the issues of foreign influence and research security. And for those who may not know CNI is currently running a series of executive roundtables on research nationalism and some of the issues related to this so there will be report out shortly on that which I think will be terribly informative for for all of us on on these topics. But what we heard from the senior research officers was a widespread view that although often there's a discussion about foreign influence or research security. Often the regulatory target of that today is China. We did hear some mentions of Iran and Russia as well. Some of the specific issues that came up from the senior research officer perspective in these areas is disclosure of foreign research funding and some concerns about whether those disclosures are are adequate given the regulatory scrutiny of those as well as issues around flows of international graduate students there have been some of you may know some some concerns about the about the kind of sourcing and interest of certain sets of graduate students. This area has been occupying huge bandwidth for the senior research officers. They've worked to understand the issues because there have in fact not been you know there's a combination of new regulation but also newly enforced existing regulation and I think just trying to understand what the issues are has been preoccupation. There have been efforts to establish the processes organizational structures and the staffing by the way there is now dedicated staffing at many institutions to try to ensure and manage compliance with with some of these issues. And of course there's been an effort to educate faculty members and make sure that faculty members understand with their responsibilities and potential risks in some of these areas, maybe. If we can go on to the next slide one of the things that was really really clear is that within this emphasis on compliance there are also some real concerns that the senior research officers have. Probably the one that came up most regularly was a concern about limitations in talent acquisitions and research competitiveness. Where there were concerns about whether they would still be able to acquire talent internationally to the same degree that had been possible previously and the implications that that could have on research competitiveness. There were concerns about scientific collaborations with universities and individual researchers and research labs in other countries. And there were concerns, you know, frankly about the basic principles of scientific openness and the free exchange of ideas. All that said, we heard a variety of different views about the nature of this emphasis on compliance we heard some individuals who felt very very strongly that this was a reflection that this this. The issue of foreign influence and research security really was a reflection of research nationalism and even xenophobia in the in the outgoing administration in the US. And then we heard others who said well I'm ready and on a classified basis and I can tell you that at least some of these concerns are very legitimate so we heard a really wide range and everything between between those those two extremes. And I want to emphasize that the concerns here, some of them are are about competitiveness and so forth but some of them are actual, some of the concerns we heard from the senior research officers are real human concerns about the effects on individuals So I'd like to close, we'd like to close by talking about some of the human impacts that the, not just from research security but but also from the pandemic itself on the research enterprise. And so in the next slide what you'll see is that the human impacts of coven on researchers that that we were able to see in our landscape review review are are vast. I'm sure this is not a surprise to anyone but it would be remiss not to emphasize the limitations facing international students graduate students in this case is what we were focusing on because of because of the research enterprise and the impediments that they face in coming to and staying in the United States during especially during the pandemic but there were other certainly other issues connected to that as well. We, it was also very clear that there are differential impacts from the pandemic and the associated disruptions. These impacts are inequitable by gender, they're inequitable by caregiver status, they're inequitable by career level. And this really comes into, you know, into how the research enterprise is staffed and the researchers themselves how they are, how their career progression and professional development will will take place. And so just to kind of recap, we saw that there were substantial unanswered questions in these areas about international talent flows and so here you can see that the pandemic. And these issues around research security are probably compounding on one another in some, in some deleterious ways. There are substantial unanswered questions about the development of early career researchers, and some of the challenges that that they may face from some of these disruptions. And, although it was clear that there are likely setbacks in achieving gender equity in the academic science enterprise. There of course are substantial unanswered questions about exactly what what those will look like and whether there are ways to ameliorate that. So with that, we would like to bring the presentation to a close. We've certainly covered a tremendous amount of ground here, and we would love to hear what resonated and what what questions there there may be where we can perhaps dig in a little bit further. Thank you. Thank you so much, Roger and thank you, Boya and Jane for just a fantastic presentation and overview of this landscape, which is rich and fascinating and really just leads us to so many more questions about where we're headed and what more we need to be addressing and asking and thinking about I really appreciate you setting the scene for that. As Roger said the floor is now open for questions so please feel free to type your questions into the Q&A box now. And our panelists would be happy to address them. I know that Cliff has a question. So while we're waiting to hear from other attendees, Cliff do you want to go ahead. Yes, I do and it's a it's a little bit long winded, but I'll ask it anyway. So, particularly when we started looking into research continuity kinds of issues in the March, April timeframe. There was a sense that we got at a number of institutions that senior leadership seemed to roughly equate the research enterprise with the stuff we do in the labs here, which I found very interesting. I'm thinking a little bit about your definition of the research enterprise and it seems like there are a couple ways you could go at it one is a purely is this sort of well it's what we do in our labs. Another way is to look at it as it's anything we can get extra mural funding for. And the, you know, sort of financial frame lens a little credence to that. Or you can use the sort of more general definition that I believe Roger opened with about, you know, it's it's about the generation of knowledge. In your conversations, how did how did things like humanities factor in to the thinking of chief research officers, and maybe as as one additional sort of sub footnote to that. Do you find your distinction between professional and service approaches to the chief research officer position, extremely illuminating and fruitful. I'm in my limited experience here. If you look at people who are doing this in the service role. They almost, I cannot think of a of an example that doesn't come out of some kind of stem field. I'm wondering if you ran across any chief research officers in a service role who came out of the humanities. Roger, do you want to start. I'll, I'll jump in and and or Jane can as as as is useful. I think that I would just say in terms of the definition I would start by saying in terms of the definition of the research enterprise. I think it would vary tremendously based on which senior research officer we spoke with so we spoke with some who really see themselves principally as chief revenue officers for the for the research enterprise and for those I don't think that the humanities do meaningfully factor in, except in so far as in a few cases they really were looking at how could we generate value for the humanities that was that was kind of the discussion topic that at least one of them maybe to really prominently. We're trying to emphasize and they were saying look, it's not that we're expecting the humanists to generate millions of dollars each. But if we go from, you know, an average of $5,000 each to $10,000 each. That's a huge increase percentage wise and it represents a validation of the an external validation of the kind of impact and interest in the work so there was a kind of mindset like that that we came across a few, a few times. So, you know, I think the other way that the humanists factored in. We have spoke about this already was in terms of the richness of these interdisciplinary programs and teams that some of the senior research officers were trying to foster on particular and so it's not just humanists I mean it could be legal scholars it could be social scientists and others but the idea of bringing together, you know an ethics perspective on the biological area, you know biomedical area of interest or what have you in the sense that there are ways that humanists can and should contribute to and support that work and I think that was one of the, one of the bits that came up, probably more more frequently than anything else in terms of how we heard about about humanists. Clifford your observation about the service role I think is such a service model is such an important one of those call of those senior research officers, almost every single one of them was a was a scientist now not all of them were necessarily a lab there could be, you know, field field researchers or observational researchers of one sort or another. There was one notable exception who was a law professor. And I think that may have been the only senior research officer of what service or professional model who was not a scientist by training at least. And in that particular case, the individual brought to bear some pretty extensive policy and sort of legal interests that were germane to to the senior research officer role so it wasn't as surprising of a sort of you know intellectual property and knowledge transferring things things of that sort so let me stop there and where Jane may have me wish to add to that. Just one point to add. In every conversation, we had this whole issue of interdisciplinary importance of interdisciplinary research was highlighted. And always mentioned was scientists working with humanists social scientists and actually they very often listed professional programs with its law social work. Management so on so forth. But something he really did not check was whether this whole interdisciplinary thing was more aspirational as vision or how much they were able to put it in practice, but they very often mentioned that that kind of structural, not the barriers but impediments in means of kind of bringing individuals together and, you know, and motivating them to work together. And again I think Roger already made this point but there were several mentions to you know income in comparison to science, the funding sources for humanities not being robust and again, that's one of the reasons they are trying to diversify from, you know, getting funds from alumni or from foundations so on so forth. I think definitely. I'm really happy to hear kind of this research enterprise definition, you know, being kind of formed beyond the science although the science is at the center because of the revenues it generates or sometimes its impact especially with health so Thanks that's really illuminating. Thank you. Thank you so much. We do have a few more questions here in the queue so let me just get right in there. The first one is, could you give a better sense of the context when the library was mentioned by SROs. Let me perhaps start and then I'll turn it over to Roger and Jane. I mean as you know SNR we work very closely with libraries and I spent more than 20 years of my life in the library so we know when we enter these conversations, we really want to understand the big picture but we were really trying to understand the space vis-à-vis libraries so very, very specifically in at least two questions we asked about libraries, libraries role, so that was really the context. The first big one was research support and that we as I said that was the big question to start the conversation and then we use probes we said you know about the library how is the library working. And the second one was research data and research information management systems again we did ask. As I said, you know Roger and I in these interviews were very much interested in understanding implications for various service providers that are really aiming to support the research enterprise so library was very important for us at least understanding. I hope I answered a question. Roger, anything to add or Jane. I think that's perfect. I think. Thank you, Oya, and thank you for the question. Roger just pointed out to me there was a there was kind of a related question here that I think would be fine to go ahead and follow up on. That last question from Sarah Pritchard who who asks, did any of your vpr interviewees seem to get that libraries themselves meet all the definitions of core facilities and library funding should be worried about in exactly the same way. And then she comments too often on campus were not clustered to advocate in that way and I'm not talking about how overhead rate is split up. Would you like to comment on that. So perhaps I'll try to speak to that so the simple answer is no I don't think that the typical senior research officer that we spoke to gets that even though of course we. And that was the reason why we phrase the question the way that the way that we did as I pointed out. So the single exception, which I think maybe of interest to some of the library directors in particular. Maybe not the single exception, one of the very, very few exceptions was a senior research officer, VP of research to whom the library reported. And as, as many of the people in the CNI community will realize there tends to be a preference among library directors to report directly to the provost, whether as a vice provost for libraries themselves associate provost for libraries or as a as a dean of libraries right that is seen as a kind of signal of the kind of importance that's given to the to the library. But in fact, the one case where the senior research officer seem to really really get some of the strategic things that were going on in the library was a case where that senior research officer had the library as part of their reporting responsibility so I don't say that to you know argue with anybody's perspective on anything I just thought it was very, very interesting. I think this raises a really important question, though, which is what are the things that libraries can do to build greater alignment with, you know, with the senior research officer and a greater sense of shared purpose and, and so we're actually one of the things that we're thinking of doing is organizing a kind of cohort of research library directors who might be interested in exploring that that question further so happy to talk to anybody offline who might be interested in pursuing that. That was really interesting and a great question Sarah thank you for raising that thanks for addressing it Roger. Another question now was there any consideration of working in the various open environments open source open access open data. Perhaps this is anecdotal, not a generalization but as someone who is really interested in preference this kind of stick stuck with me. Mr. interview is mentioned that their faculty now has increasing interest in using preference. And he mentioned that maybe it was a recent meeting or they were discussing preference and was very interesting because he was thinking about reputation building an institutional reputation and risk. It was obvious this person would be excited about openness but his mind was really thinking about what does it mean for my university. How would early sharing of research going to affect my, my university's reputation or are there any risks involved so it's just an anecdotal but there were definitely are definitely watching the space. And I think I tried to articulate it as I was talking about research data, research data, public access mandates. There is really great awareness among these senior research officers that it's really important to engage the public's and, you know, and increase their confidence about research knowledge created and how it has impact on real individuals. So they are very mindful. But, but they were talking about how do we tell our story. How do we unpacked research so it's easier to understand. And yes, openness is important but is that open information making sense and is it really leading to better understanding. I thought that they were really much more thinking about impact not openness for the sake of openness. Roger, Jane, you may have additions. I think that's really, really well said, and you know the research data case just really as you've already spoken just really made that clear that there were just so many factors on their landscape other than openness it wasn't to say that they disagreed with it or had any, you know, ideological opposition to it but there were just so many other factors at play and I think that's, that's just so interesting. Thank you very much. We really appreciate that question as well. I see that we're close to time here so I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to actually shut down the recording but invite any attendees who'd like to stay back. Our panelists have agreed to stay with us a little bit longer here for a chat and we'd love to have you join us. So, if you just raise your hand I can turn on your microphone and you can join our chat. And thank you again so much to our three panelists, Oya Jane, Roger, it was wonderful having you here at CNI we really appreciate your coming to share this work with us and thank you so much to our attendees for making time with us we hope we'll see you at our next plenary where Fran Burnham will receive the Paul Levin Peters award so hope to see you there. Bye bye.