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_at_ukoln.a
  c.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.