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

1. Toward distributed infrastructures for digital preservation: the roles of collaboration and trust Michael DayDCC Research TeamUKOLN, University of BathBath BA2 7AY, United Kingdomm.day@ukoln.ac.uk

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.