Directions in Digital Scholarship: Support for Digital, Data-Intensive, and Computational Research in Academic Libraries (Report)

Executive Summary

• Aligning the program with university priorities and strategic initiatives
• Gaining support from faculty who partner with and use services of the DS program
• Providing strong library administrative support, including making DS an integral part of the library’s offerings and reshaping staff positions to include or focus on work that is integral to DS
• Communicating what the DS program offers to internal staff and a variety of constituencies and potential supporters
• Developing strong campus partnerships

• Staffing problems: lack of expertise, vacant positions, difficulty attracting qualified staff
• Difficulty scaling programs to meet burgeoning demand
• Lack of policies guiding the degree of involvement in projects, consultations, and instruction and commitment to curation
• Weak participation by library staff in other units
• Communication and legibility of the DS program

• Clear notions of success for DS programs
• Common data collection practices for DS activities
• Policies and guidelines for projects and instruction
• Models of organizational roles and reporting relationships
• Models for campus partnerships
• Improved modes of internal and external communication for DS programs

Introduction

This CNI initiative examines programs in academic libraries that support digital scholarship (DS), data-intensive, and computational research activities. This encompasses an evolving set of partnerships, services, instructional programs, events, and other activities and includes working with faculty and students in such technologies as GIS, data visualization, text mining, AR/VR, programming environments, 3-D printing, artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning, and many more. There is great variety among academic libraries as to how such programs are constituted and organized, what technologies are supported, and the depth of services provided. However, while some programs were started primarily to work with digital humanities (DH), increasingly libraries that have such programs serve most or all disciplines represented at their institution and consider faculty, graduate students, undergraduates, and university staff among their constituents. Often in tandem with the development of DS programs, libraries instituted a set of consultative services associated with data management, particularly in response to funder mandates and driven by compliance issues. While library staff who focused on advising researchers on data management, curation, and other types of research data practices were often in a separate unit from DS staff, their efforts are increasingly intertwined and complementary. This is due, in part, because more aspects of DS practice and methodologies involve structuring, analyzing, and representing large sets of data.

While most DS programs increased their online consultation and instructional activities during the pandemic, representatives of those programs continue to believe that physical facilities related to DS, data-intensive, and computational research are important.

It is essential to note that while some academic administrators and librarians question why libraries are involved in DS, most academic libraries have provided both content and services for a wide array of information formats for many decades. Libraries have longstanding collections of music, films, maps, manuscripts, and datasets, in analog and digital form, that require specialized equipment to access the content and a variety of tools to query and analyze it. The sources of data involved in DS projects derive from texts, photographs, videos, maps, data streams from scientific instruments, etc., all important types of content in the scholarly enterprise. In the digital environment, the use of tools to collect, analyze, and produce new content is inextricably intertwined with the content itself, and this presents challenges for both users and the information professionals who work with them. DS programs are a mechanism to consolidate a set of activities that bring together content, tools, services, and facilities to support and advance new types of scholarly work. This results in deeper interactions with both technologies and users in the analysis and creation of content than was typical of library services of the past.

Background

CNI has had an interest in DS centers from at least 2011 and back to the 1990s if one includes CNI’s interest in DH. In 2014, CNI held its first workshop on DS centers, focusing on libraries or other units offering specialized tools, physical facilities, consultations, research partnerships, workshops, and other activities related to the use of high-end technologies to enable scholars to ask new types of research questions and to assist them in representing the outputs of their scholarship in new modes. After the 2014 workshop, CNI held a series of in-person workshops that used the term “digital scholarship planning” rather than “digital scholarship centers,” to assist libraries in the early planning stages of program development. The change in wording also signals the emphasis on institutions prioritizing programming rather than physical space. During the early phase of the pandemic, CNI hosted a wide-ranging webinar series on DS; videos and other resources are available at https://www.cni.org/events/cni-workshops/digital-scholarship-planning-2020-webinar-series. Over the years, CNI’s membership meetings have included many sessions on DS topics.

At the institutional level, DS programs and centers often developed serendipitously, through relationships between a faculty-led project team and interested librarians and library staff. Programs grow as word of mouth often leads from collaboration with a single research project to partnerships with multiple projects. Work with researchers on DS projects often incorporates elements of working with students and integration of the project’s outputs or processes into the faculty members’ courses. Currently, many DS programs struggle to keep up with the demand for the many types of activities in which they are engaged.

Digital scholarship, data-intensive research, and computational research are terms used in this current CNI initiative, shorthanded together as DS in this report, although they may not be clear to librarians and the constituencies they serve. Many people in the DS field dislike the term “DS” but continue to use it, largely because a good alternative is not in common use. The term likely started to be used because libraries wanted to convey that their programs served more than DH, since many developed from a core DH program, expanding into the social sciences and in some cases the sciences and professional fields. This came about, in part, because technologies such as GIS and data visualization are used in almost every discipline; therefore, the expertise in the library serving those needs can be discipline-neutral. Some DS programs have developed over decades while others are quite new.

In the current environment, programs are adding expertise, especially in the areas of support for data-intensive and computational research; however, the services developed for those activities may be in separate units from DS.

While some DS and many DH centers developed outside of academic libraries, CNI’s interest over the years has focused on those that have a strong tie to libraries, administratively and often in a physical presence. However, there is great variation in the nature of those programs, starting with whether they have been constituted as a “program” with a director and staff or whether they are a group of services distributed over a number of library (and other campus) units. Naming is also an area of variation, with many libraries using the terminology “digital scholarship” to describe their initiatives while others use terms such as “faculty commons” or “scholars lab.” In more recent years, “research data” has become a component of the names of some library programs. Many libraries have some dedicated spaces for their DS programs, but not all. The types of facilities and technologies available vary, with some facilities designated solely or mainly for use by those involved in DS activities and others, such as a library classroom, that may be used for a variety of purposes.

CNI DS Initiative in 2023

Through this report and associated content, CNI is interested in providing materials that review and illuminate the landscape of academic library support for DS, data-intensive research, and computational research over a period of time and into the future. We want to understand the trajectory of programs and what has influenced those trajectories. This initiative explores many characteristics of programs including whether some were developed in the context of the university’s broad priorities, such as those represented in a strategic plan, what groups are included in their constituencies, and what affects their sustainability. In addition, the initiative attempts to understand trends in DS programs including attention to the impact of the pandemic, especially regarding the importance of physical spaces and in-person programming.

A particular area of interest is how DS programs relate to other technology-intensive or digitally focused initiatives within the library, e.g. digital publishing or virtual reality activities, and how DS programs incorporate or connect to research data support services, both within the library and with other campus units such as research computing or central IT.

The components of the initiative included online interviews with 12 library and DS leaders (Appendix B), collection of information on libraries’ DS programs, two online forums, and some dissemination activities including this report, a session at the Spring 2023 CNI Membership Meeting, and two follow-on webinars. Details on the process are described in Appendix A.

Analysis of DS Programs

To develop this report, sources included a brief literature review, interviews with 12 library and DS leaders, analysis of DS profiles collected from 47 institutions, and responses by 24 participants in two online forums, which included some responses to polls. This report attempts to analyze and synthesize the information collected and provide perspectives on trends. However, there is a great deal of variation among DS programs, and no one, or small number, of configurations emerged as a model for other institutions. For example, DS programs ran the gamut of whether or not they included such units as publishing, makerspaces, media production, scholarly communication, and GIS. It was not clear what factors led libraries to include some things in the DS program, and this question was not directly addressed in the forums. Likely, historical evolution, campus politics, administrative preferences, disciplinary needs, and personalities influenced the evolution of the organization.

This report provides multiple options for those developing or reconfiguring DS programs to examine in their institutional contexts as they think through goals, alignment with their institutional priorities, staff capacity, and ways to develop a sustainable program.

Digital Scholarship, Data-intensive, and Computational Research Programs

Data-intensive and computational research activities have taken a more prominent role on many campuses in recent years. In some cases, universities have developed new data science initiatives, integrated data-intensive competencies in many curricular areas, and hired new faculty cohorts with those specialties. Academic libraries have been responsive to those trends. Most of the libraries examined in this initiative offer a wide array of programmatic initiatives related to DS, research data, and computational research. Some libraries organize those activities under one administrative umbrella, e.g. an associate university librarian (AUL), while others have units in those arenas reporting up different channels. In some cases, another unit on campus is the primary entity offering services in an area, such as computational research, while in other cases, support is offered in a partnership of the library, IT, the research office, or other units.

During the forums, participants discussed whether their libraries have a coordinated program for support of DS, data-intensive, and computational research. If offered by the library, most often services for computational research are in a unit separate from DS. Several participants noted that they see increased connections among these areas. For example, some DS projects are described as examining collections as data, and visualization projects, often part of a DS program, are data-intensive. If projects in DS and computational research are using programming environments such as R or Python, does it make sense to have that expertise in two different parts of the organization? A small number of libraries have reorganized or are in the process of reorganizing so that units working in all of these areas are under one administrative umbrella. A number of participants mentioned that the library website often does not assist their user community in easily determining who to approach for particular needs related to these services. All of the participants noted the need for good mechanisms for handing off user queries to the appropriate unit. Some libraries have developed a concierge service in partnership with the research office and IT to facilitate connections between potential users and appropriate expertise. In some cases, that includes referring individuals to units on other parts of the campus, such as research computing. Some noted that while researchers need to work with IT on projects involving very large datasets, they often prefer to have consultations with someone in the library first since the library staff is more receptive to talking through the project lifecycle and specific issues whereas interactions with IT are more transactional.

In a small number of the institutions represented at the forums, participants described emerging, provost-level supported initiatives to build a coordinated set of research data support with partnership between the library, research office, and IT.

In the forums, there was discussion of the use of terms such as “support” and “service” as distinct from characterizing activities as “partnerships” or “collaborations,” either with the constituencies involved or with other campus units. This report acknowledges but does not focus on such distinctions, although they are touched on in the section below on consultation programs. Professional activities, such as offering workshops, can be seen as a service without directly involving a partnership, for example.

Relationship of DS Programs to Institutional Priorities

During the forums, we asked whether an institution’s DS program had a close connection to institutional priorities, whether at its inception or at present, and there was much variability in responses. Some of the long-standing programs described serendipitous origins where a faculty member or team approached a receptive librarian to partner on a DS project, which led to other projects, often through word of mouth. Some participants who described their institution as STEM-oriented had developed their DS programs most closely in concert with institutional priorities, often in response to emphases on data-informed research priorities. In a few examples, presidential-level focus on interdisciplinarity was instrumental in the library developing a DS program since it is seen as a neutral party on campus. In fact, many participants noted institutional emphases on multidisciplinary thinking and innovation as a way that a library could leverage its position to build a DS program since it is seen as a discipline-neutral space, a kind of connective tissue, and a trusted third party among disciplines. Some also noted the translational role that libraries play between and among disciplines. Other participants noted specific administrative emphases, usually at the presidential or provostial level, to develop more initiatives to support research generally or in a specific area such as public humanities or to develop digital literacy skills for students. A number of representatives mentioned conducting some needs assessments at some point in the development of their program.

Another way that some programs can be responsive to institutional priorities is through their advisory boards. While we did not ask specifically about this topic, several forum participants mentioned their advisory boards in relation to setting directions and priorities, particularly at the outset of their programs.

Constituencies Served and Changes over Time

Unsurprisingly, the profile data demonstrated that almost all examined DS programs serve faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students, and most serve postdocs (some may not serve postdocs because their institution does not have individuals with that designation). Around half also serve community members and a smaller number serve individuals external to the university and local community (these could be partners in projects, for example). Few serve local high school students. One forum participant noted that we had not included the category of university staff among the constituencies served. She stated that almost 50% of their consultation work is devoted to campus staff from the research office, compliance staff, facilities department, and others. This is an area for further exploration and a potential lever to request more resources for DS in the library.

For many DS programs, graduate students are the largest constituency served, but many mentioned a significant increase in use by undergraduate students in recent years as they tackle more technology and data-intensive projects, either independently or as part of course assignments. One institution that began with a focus on humanities projects led by faculty has recently seen substantial growth in the use of its services by graduate students.

The DS programs of almost all of the profiled institutions serve the disciplinary areas of humanities and social sciences; slightly fewer also serve the arts, STEM, and professional fields such as health sciences, business, and law. A number of institutions with a strong STEM emphasis participated in the forums and described how that influenced the types of programs they developed, particularly related to data-intensive research. A number of their representatives stated that while their programs largely began as humanities-focused, they quickly attracted users from social sciences and later added capabilities specifically targeting sciences, medicine, and professional schools, such as business or law. Several participants mentioned strong user constituencies from music, art, design, and dance. Several other user groups or partners in DS programs mentioned included individuals from digital media, computer science, and disability studies. One individual noted that alumni had participated in several of their DS projects that featured events that had taken place at the institution.

Several participants noted that new faculty often approach DS staff shortly after they arrive at the university to explore what the program could offer them. Others noted that during the pandemic campus closures, some faculty began to work with DS staff to try new things in their research or instruction and have continued those relationships.

Balance and Type of Services for Research and Learning

DS programs offer a variety of consultation services, support or partnership on projects, and instruction activities. We asked about whether DS staff spent more time on activities related to research or learning and found that distinction was often not easily made. Participants in the forums noted that an interaction with a faculty member might start with a consultation about developing a digital project assignment for students in a course. Through that interaction, the faculty member often returned to discuss her or his research needs. In other cases, the faculty member might interact with a particular technology available through the DS program, such as AR but then return to request that the DS staff work with them in other areas. Also, the products of a faculty member’s research might include using those resources in classes with students. DS professionals believe that many elements of research and learning are intertwined. A representative from a liberal arts college noted that they specifically seek to support projects where research and curricular development intersect. In some cases, forum participants were clear that they chose to put more resources into either research or instruction, at times in response to funding from an internal source such as a college or the research office and at times in response to the president’s strategic directions, but there was no overall pattern to those responses.

Consultation Programs and Project Support

Consultations are the bread and butter of most DS programs. However, the category of consultations can include anything from a one-time interaction to assist with a coding problem to a years-long partnership with departmental faculty and others working on a scholarly project. Consultations may be between a faculty member, student, or university staff and someone who works full-time in the DS unit or with subject liaisons, metadata specialists, special collections librarians, preservation librarians, IP consultants, and others.

In recent years, funder policies (government and non-government) related to data management and data accessibility in the US, Canada, and internationally, have had the most impact on the demand for consultations at many libraries. In some cases, this type of consultation was available on campus only through the library; in other cases, there are partnerships with the library, research office, and research computing (or others) to work with faculty on fulfilling their obligations for data management plans, etc. In addition to the funder requirements, more faculty and graduate students are seeking consultations on other data-oriented activities such as processing data and data migration.

Several significant concerns about working with faculty projects emerged during discussions at the forums. Some individuals representing programs that have been in place for decades have learned lessons from the years they have been in operation. Participants described legacy projects, often bespoke humanities projects that their unit had partnered on in the early years of their program’s existence, sometimes a decade or more ago. Usually, the DS staff that had originally worked on the project were no longer at the university. The participants had concerns that faculty expected the library to keep these projects alive, which would take considerable resources and was often not seen by the DS unit as a high priority. The library’s commitment to the long-term viability of the project had never been documented. Often faculty expected the library to provide this work as a “service” rather than working as a partner on the project. This created conflicts that were not easily resolved.

In addition to issues with these legacy projects, some faculty expect the DS unit to develop a website or a database with the faculty member’s content as a core service. Here again, DS staff expressed concern that faculty did not approach them as partners to discuss the nature of the project, software used, etc., but wanted to hand it off to DS staff to implement according to their instructions.

In the discussion of these projects, a few institutional representatives indicated that they have or are working on developing tiers of service or guidelines as to when and how much they will commit to faculty-led projects. One institution requires individuals or teams to complete some foundational instructional experience to be eligible for a higher level of project support from DS staff. Some others noted that they no longer build websites for faculty but will train them or their students to do that work.

It is important to realize that many DS programs are still heavily involved in large research projects with faculty; in some cases, a DS staff member may be a co-PI on the project. In addition, a number of DS programs have their own significant research agendas, whether developing digital projects, often related to the university or local area, or developing new digital tools for the DS community. One forum participant stated that working on developing tools makes staff members more effective in working with their constituencies.

One topic mentioned but not expressly addressed in the forums was the ongoing concern about recognition for digital projects in promotion and tenure decisions, which can affect which faculty want to get involved in this type of work.

Instructional Programs

Instruction related to DS programs takes many forms and involves a significant amount of staff time. The most common are stand-alone workshops and course-integrated class sessions. For stand-alone workshops, topics can include specific types of software and coding tools; processing, formatting, and curating data; website development and hosting; open access publishing; and more. Often these workshops are offered to graduate and undergraduate students, faculty, and staff. Some may use or incorporate online materials developed by other institutions, and workshops may be offered in person, synchronously online, or asynchronously. Many DS programs are offering more workshops online than they did before the pandemic and are attracting large participant groups. One institution reported that they had over 450 individuals representing close to 90 different departments or units taking part in their asynchronous, Carpentries-based programming workshops during one academic quarter. Using online workshops may still entail real staff time to develop and administer programs, grade assignments, if applicable, and hold office hours for student questions.

One participant stated that expectations that the library provides the technical training of all students in a particular program have been unsustainable. They switched their model to doing some intensive summer training for faculty so that the faculty could do more themselves with their students.

One question that was discussed only briefly was whether workshops needed to include discipline-specific examples and context to be effective with participants; in what instances can a generic workshop on a specific coding tool, for example, Python or R, be accepted by participants from many disciplines?

One institution described teaching sessions through a graduate school initiative whereby students are required to take a certain number of offerings; the library offers sessions on DS topics and ethical issues related to information. Several specialized initiatives involved various types of partnerships. In one institution, all instructional activities for graduate students are in partnership with campus IT. Another institution reported that its ability to offer a wider range of online programs had increased because it collaborates on those offerings with other area institutions. Another program reported that it partners with the teaching and learning center on workshops focused on accessibility, privacy, and other ethical issues.

Several institutions reported that they were moving away from one-time workshops to a series of workshops scaffolding on the content of the previous one, to assist attendees in building stronger skillsets. They also hope to build learning communities where peer-to-peer learning can flourish.

Another type of workshop series offered by several institutions is a summer institute for faculty, focusing either on developing skills with particular software types or on partnering with DS staff to develop assignments for digital projects in their courses. Often these series are in person, and one institution reported that they had to suspend their summer program at the onset of the pandemic and had not yet restarted it.

Appendix A

CNI DS Initiative Details

Components of the 2023 Initiative

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.