 |
 |
Another quick thought: if you're worried about faculty reacting poorly to the legalistic feel of a MOU, adapt it! We simply call our document a "project plan," and while it contains much of the same content of a MOU and/or SLA, it's in plain English. Also potentially worth noting—the model of a Collaborators' Bill of Rights: http://mcpress.media-commons.org/offthetracks/part-one-models-for-collaboration-career-paths-acquiring-institutional-support-and-transformation-in-the-field/a-collaboration/collaborators%E2%80%99-bill-of-rights. Several institutions (UCLA, UMD, and I'm sure others) have adopted this language for setting up expectations for working collaboratively. Sarah On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Renee Reaume <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > These links are extremely helpful. Thank you so much. I am in the process > of developing a metadata service arrangement with a clinical research unit > on our campus. I'd be interested in if anyone has had a similar experience > or other wisdom to share. > > Renee > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Sarah Melton > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:58 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] memorandums of understanding, copyrights, & > acknowledgements > > Hi Eric, > > These are big, important questions! Collaboration is a giant topic in > digital scholarship, so I'll just offer a few brief thoughts. > > I would say that part of it depends on the kind of work. Is it a one-off > consultation? An ongoing project? Is the library offering long-term > support, whether through storage, labor, or other expertise? As Kari > mentions, the question of copyright is likely a question of institutional > policy. But the other elements you mention—MOUs and attribution—get a > little murkier. > > For ongoing projects or larger-term investments, at least, I think MOUs > are a great idea. They help define the scope of the collaboration, in > addition to outlining roles and responsibilities. UT-Arlington has a nice > collection of MOUs: https://uta-ir.tdl.org/uta-ir/handle/10106/25646. > > My view is that if you want to create a culture of collaboration, it helps > to be explicit about it. As such, I like TaDiRAH's taxonomy of digital > humanities scholarship activities, objects, and techniques: > https://github.com/dhtaxonomy/TaDiRAH/tree/master/reading > > I'm happy to chat further—I love this topic! > > Sarah > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > To what degree do any of you enter into memorandums of understanding > > between yourselves and the people for whom you provide services? > > Similarly, are the products of your services copyrighted, and if so, > > then by whom? And finally, if you provide services to your > > constituents, then to what degree do you require copyright statements > and/or acknowledgements? > > > > I work in a digital scholarship center with a number of other people. > > [1] As a group, we provide sets of different value-added services to > > students, faculty, and staff. These value-added services go beyond the > > packaging and re-packaging of data/information. Instead, our services > > are analysis against content. We evaluate data given to us and answer > questions like: > > what trends can be gleaned from this data, what are the anomalies, > > when & where did given events occur, what are some of the possible > > reasons why, etc. In this way, we act more akin to “special > > librarians” where we essentially "give them the fish as opposed to > > teaching them to fish." These value added services often manifest > > themselves in the forms of software systems/scripts, indexes, > > datasets, as well as charts/graphs. Many of our constituents are > > humanities and social sciences scholars. As such and in general, they > > do possess the skills necessary to some of our text mining, GIS, and > > statistical analysis. Additionally and unlike the hard scientists, > > they often work in very very small groups of single individuals; > co-authorship is uncommon. > > > > The center’s services are free, as in free beer. But the services > > represent real scholarly effort. As such there is a desire to make > > explicit our contributions. Such is part of the academic tradition. > > After all, our intellectual capital is all we have. To resolve some of > > these issues, or to bring them to the fore, there is some desire to > > enter into memorandums of understanding — a sort of contract outlining > > different party’s roles & responsibilities. There is some desire to > > add copyright attribution statements to charts & graphs. There is some > > desire to ensure, at the very least, acknowledgements in articles & > > presentations. Heck, if we were to go the whole nine yards, then there > > are also desires to have the whole kits & caboodles deposited into local > repositories. > > > > On the other hand, much of this flies in the face to traditional > > librarianship, and after all, library services have always been free, > > and if we require memorandums, copyright statements, and/or > > acknowledgements, then the scholars may simply do without. > > > > How might some of y’all be dealing with these changing roles in your > > libraries? > > > > [1] center - http://library.nd.edu/cds/ > > > > — > > Eric Lease Morgan, Digital Initiatives Librarian Hesburgh Libraries > > University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 > > > > [log in to unmask] > > 574/631-8604 > > > > > > -- > Sarah Melton > Head of Digital Scholarship > O'Neill Library > Boston College > 140 Commonwealth Ave. > Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02467 > -- Sarah Melton Head of Digital Scholarship O'Neill Library Boston College 140 Commonwealth Ave. Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02467