Toward distributed infrastructures for digital preservation: the roles of collaboration and trust Michael Day DCC Research...
Presentation outline <ul><li>Thinking about infrastructure requirements for the present and future </li></ul><ul><li>Not p...
The need for deep infrastructure <ul><li>Recognised as far back as 1996 by the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Informat...
Intra-organisational collaboration <ul><li>Intra-organisational collaboration is increasingly important in many different ...
Research collaboration (1) <ul><li>The nature of collaboration differs markedly between academic disciplines </li></ul><ul...
Research collaboration (2)  <ul><li>A study of the physical sciences (Chompalov,  et al ., 2002) broadly identified four d...
Research collaboration (3) <ul><li>Chompalov,  et al . found that collaboration models may have an influence on knowledge ...
Research collaboration (4) <ul><li>It is unclear what all this might mean for data curation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collabo...
Collaboration for data curation (1) <ul><li>Currently focused at the disciplinary or sub-disciplinary level </li></ul><ul>...
Collaboration for data curation (2) <ul><li>The nature of the traditional research enterprise (and its funding structures)...
Collaboration for preservation <ul><li>Growing interest in the socio-economic and cultural processes that underpin digital...
Collaboration for repositories (1) <ul><li>Institutional repositories: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Development of IRs has helped...
Collaboration for repositories (2) <ul><li>SHERPA DP: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposed disaggregated model for a shared pres...
The role of trust in collaborations <ul><li>Trust is a concept explored extensively in management science </li></ul><ul><u...
Trust and control <ul><li>Trust in inter-organisational networks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Parties accept a level of vulnerabi...
Trustworthy repositories (1) <ul><li>The main current focus is on the development of criteria for the evaluation of reposi...
Trustworthy repositories (2) <ul><li>Audit and certification frameworks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are examples of control mech...
Conclusions <ul><li>Trust is an important factor in collaborative networks, e.g.: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategic alliance...
References cited <ul><li>Chompalov, I.,  et al . (2002). &quot;The organisation of scientific collaboration.&quot;  Resear...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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

1,841
-1

Published on

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
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,841
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

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

×