Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Toward distributed infrastructures for digital preservation: the roles of collaboration and trust
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Toward distributed infrastructures for digital preservation: the roles of collaboration and trust

  • 1,606 views
Published

Presentation given at: Curating our Digital Scientific Heritage: a Global Collaborative Challenge, 3rd International Digital Curation Conference, Washington, D.C., December 11-13, 2007

Presentation given at: Curating our Digital Scientific Heritage: a Global Collaborative Challenge, 3rd International Digital Curation Conference, Washington, D.C., December 11-13, 2007

Published in Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,606
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Toward distributed infrastructures for digital preservation: the roles of collaboration and trust Michael Day DCC Research Team UKOLN, University of Bath Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom [email_address]
  • 2. Presentation outline
    • Thinking about infrastructure requirements for the present and future
    • Not primarily about technologies, but about the need for inter-organisational collaboration
    • Main foci:
      • Collaboration, specifically research collaboration models and their potential influence on data curation practices
      • The role of of trust in collaborative networks
  • 3. The need for deep infrastructure
    • Recognised as far back as 1996 by the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information:
      • Digital preservation involves the "grander problem of organizing ourselves over time and as a society ... [to manoeuvre] effectively in a digital landscape" (p. 7)
      • Also identified the need for infrastructures that could support distributed networks of digital repositories (and other services)
  • 4. Intra-organisational collaboration
    • Intra-organisational collaboration is increasingly important in many different contexts, e.g.:
      • Commerce (public-private partnerships, outsourcing, strategic alliances, etc.)
      • Institutional repository networks
      • Scientific research and development
        • Research collaboration is a well-established phenomenon that has been studied by sociologists of science (and others)
        • Collaboration has an influence on data sharing and curation
  • 5. Research collaboration (1)
    • The nature of collaboration differs markedly between academic disciplines
    • Collaboration exists on a continuum that includes:
      • Informal social networks
        • Helps to define disciplinary norms and interpretational paradigms
      • Formalised, semi-permanent organisations
        • Traditionally most common in "big-science" domains, e.g. high energy physics, space science
        • The growth of e-science has emphasised the collaborative nature of research
  • 6. Research collaboration (2)
    • A study of the physical sciences (Chompalov, et al ., 2002) broadly identified four different organisational models:
      • Bureaucratic - formalised and hierarchical structures with clear lines of authority
      • Leaderless - formalised structures, but collegiate
      • Non-specialised - Broadly hierarchical, but with unspecialised division of labour
      • Participatory - fundamentally egalitarian
  • 7. Research collaboration (3)
    • Chompalov, et al . found that collaboration models may have an influence on knowledge production and data sharing
      • Suggestion that non-specialised collaborations were most representative of domains where data collection needs to be standardised across several collecting sites
      • Relationships between collaboration type and data acquisition and sharing practices were quite complex
  • 8. Research collaboration (4)
    • It is unclear what all this might mean for data curation:
      • Collaborative data curation facilities might emerge first in sub-disciplines that have a more participatory collaboration pattern or otherwise have a strong emphasis on data sharing
      • Need for more systematic research into this across all research domains
        • The Digital Curation Centre's SCARP studies will provide detailed accounts of selected domains
  • 9. Collaboration for data curation (1)
    • Currently focused at the disciplinary or sub-disciplinary level
    • Embedded within particular research communities
    • Takes advantage of the specialised knowledge available within particular "designated communities"
    • Common standards emerge where there is a need for data sharing
    • The existence of common standards make data centres and repositories viable
  • 10. Collaboration for data curation (2)
    • The nature of the traditional research enterprise (and its funding structures) means that there was little demand for collaboration on data curation across disciplinary borders
    • The fundamentally collaborative nature of e-research should make us challenge this:
      • A need to pool resources and expertise
      • A need for supporting infrastructures
    • Infrastructure requirements are often overlooked and are likely to be problematic
  • 11. Collaboration for preservation
    • Growing interest in the socio-economic and cultural processes that underpin digital preservation
      • Strategic alliances
        • National initiatives, e.g. DPC, NDIIPP, nestor
        • European Alliance for Permanent Access
      • Co-operative ventures
        • Many different models for national networks
        • International co-operation can be focused through organisations like IFLA or CDNL
        • International co-operation on specific challenges through initiatives like the International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC)
  • 12. Collaboration for repositories (1)
    • Institutional repositories:
      • Development of IRs has helped to focus attention on the importance of collaboration
      • Interoperability (currently based on OAI-PMH) means that IRs rarely work in isolation
      • IRs work in a 'service-oriented' context
        • Services that enhance metadata, improve subject access (terminology services), that support citation linking and research assessment
        • Services that provide long-term preservation (e.g. the DARE programme in the Netherlands)
  • 13. Collaboration for repositories (2)
    • SHERPA DP:
      • Proposed disaggregated model for a shared preservation environment
      • Developed framework based on OAIS reference model
    • PRESERV:
      • IR interaction with multiple third-party services
        • Bit-level preservation, preservation planning, object characterisation and validation (e.g., using registry tools like PRONOM-DROID)
  • 14. The role of trust in collaborations
    • Trust is a concept explored extensively in management science
      • Defined in terms of the confidence that parties have in the actions, intentions and goodwill of others, within a given context
      • Understood in terms of vulnerability:
        • "The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party" (Mayer, et al ., 1995, p. 712)
  • 15. Trust and control
    • Trust in inter-organisational networks
      • Parties accept a level of vulnerability, in exchange for certain benefits, e.g. in sharing risk or knowledge
      • Inter-organisational trust is developmental
        • Successful partnerships have higher levels of trust
        • High-levels of trust can have risks (e.g. Enron)
      • Trust is contrasted with 'control,' i.e. the processes used to monitor and enforce actions
        • "Trust is good, control is better" (adapted from Lenin)
        • Trust and control can work together (a duality)
  • 16. Trustworthy repositories (1)
    • The main current focus is on the development of criteria for the evaluation of repositories and other preservation services
      • A requirement articulated by the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information (1996)
      • Current initiatives include:
        • Trusted Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC) framework
        • Digital Curation Centre and Digital Preservation Europe's DRAMBORA toolkit takes an approach to self-assessment based on risk assessment
        • Proposed ISO standard
  • 17. Trustworthy repositories (2)
    • Audit and certification frameworks
      • Are examples of control mechanisms
      • Focus not just on technical suitability, but on organisational and financial viability and sustainability
      • Two main approaches
        • External audit (ISO model)
        • Self-assessment
      • Enables the development of shared organisational cultures that are focused on solving problems in an incremental way
  • 18. Conclusions
    • Trust is an important factor in collaborative networks, e.g.:
      • Strategic alliances, research projects and shared infrastructures
    • Established cultural heritage organisations can build on their existing competences (and legal mandates)
    • Scientific data archives gain trust by their close integration into disciplines
    • Collaboration and trust are important topics that will repay further investigation
  • 19. References cited
    • Chompalov, I., et al . (2002). "The organisation of scientific collaboration." Research Policy , 31: 749-767.
    • Mayer, R.C., et al . (1995). "An integrative model of organisational trust." Academy of Management Review , 20: 709-734.