AN EXPEDITIONARY SURVEY

THE FAIR PRINCIPLES AND THE EOSC CONCEPT IN THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY OF DIGITAL HUMANITIES, LANGUAGE STUDIES AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

ThisreportisdistributedunderaCC–BY4.0license.The financial support of the European Commission under the H2020 grant 654119 is dulyacknowledged.

1

Introduction:thesurvey

Performing a survey on the FAIR principles and the EOSC within the researchcommunity of the domain of digital humanities, language studies and culturalheritage (DH+L+CH)– theremitof thePARTHENOSproject– wasmotivatedbythe need of taking the pulse of these researchers about the EOSC, itsdevelopment and purpose, in the light of the statementmade in the EU EOSCDeclarationthatEOSC“servicesandfunctionalitiesshallbeuser-driven”.The conceptwas to rapidly get the researchers’ feedback on very basic issues,suchastheirknowledgeandappreciationabouttheFAIRprinciplesandtheEOSC,and get indications on urgent actions as well as on more precise ways ofcollectingtheirperspectiveandexpectations.Tothebestofourknowledge, it isthefirsttimethatresearchersinthiswidedomainareaskedtogivetheiropinion.Twoactionshavebeenundertaken.Thefirstoneconsistsinaquestionnairesenttosomemailingliststotallingseveralhundredresearchers,mostofwhichareinvolvedinprojectsofDigitalHumanitiesand Digital Heritage. Such lists included, but were not limited to, the internalPARTHENOSandARIADNEmailinglists.Addresseeswereaskedtodistributethesurveytoanyotherlisttomaximizethedisseminationeffect: as it iswell known,questionnaires are importantnotonlyforthefeedbackbutalsoforraisingawarenessabouttheissuesurveyedamongthe perspective respondents. Since the sample did not aim at statisticalsignificance, this approach does not seem to bias the survey. On the contrary,since the target of the survey was mainly formed by researchers involved inprojects with a strong digital component, i.e. a “learned” minority, it may beexpectedthatnegativeaspectssuchaslimitedknowledgeorpessimismabouttheEOSC impact are even more serious among the wider population of allresearchers.Inotherwords,ifsuchaspectsareevidencedinthesurvey,itisjustthetipoftheiceberg.Todate

1some100answers(approximately15%ofthetotal)werereceived.Thus,

as already mentioned, the sample is not representative of the whole researchcommunity: it indicatively represents, instead, those actively involved in digitalresearch projects. The geographic distribution of respondents shows someimbalance,inpartbecausetheissuessurveyedareperceivedasmoreimportantinsomecountries,eitherbecauseofthematurityoftheresearchcommunityorfor the perceived absence of political actions on a subject that, instead,researchersfeelasimportant.However,thequestionnaireresultsalreadyprovideimportantinformation,andsuggesttoplanamoredetaileddatacollection.

1Thepresentreportisbasedontheanswersreceivedby16/11/2017.Thesurveystartedon25/10/2017.

2

The second action was a workshop titled “Focus on the EOSC” held on 8November 2017 by the PARTHENOS project, in the occasion of another projectmeeting.Participantswereaskedtoprovidetheiropinionaboutthreegroupsofissues:

• Empowerment:theroleoftheDH+L+CHcommunityinbuildingtheEOSC

• EOSCservices:whatshouldwedotoobtainthe implementation inEOSCofthereallyusefulones

• EOSCarchitecture:whichrequirementsdowestatefortheEOSCarchitecture

Theparticipantsgroupedinbreak-outsessionsontheabovethemes.Thereportsare in preparation, and from the preliminary outcomes organizing a morecomprehensiveworkshopalreadyseemstobeveryuseful.

Such activities were carried out in the framework of the PARTHENOS(www.parthenos-project.eu),anEU-fundedH2020clusterproject,byateamledbytheprojectcoordinatorFrancoNiccolucci,withtheactivecollaborationofWP2“Community involvementandrequirements”,WP6“Servicesandtool”andWP7“Skills, professional development and advancement”. Other colleaguessubstantiallyhelpedindistributingthequestionnairetodifferentemaillists.

3

1.Thequestionnaire

ThequestionnairewascreatedasanonlineGoogleform,including:

• afirstoptionalquestion(#1)abouttherespondentnameandemail:a largemajority provided their personal information, while others preferred toremainanonymous;

• aquestion(#2)aboutthecountrywheretheyworked;

• 8closed-answermandatoryquestions(#3to#10)

• 5open-answeroptionalquestions(#11to#15)ontheEOSC

Respondentshadtheopportunitytoskipthelast5questionsiftheyfelttheyhadnocontributiontogive.Themandatorypartofthequestionnairerequiredafewminutestocomplete.Theresultsareexaminedbelow.

2.Generalquestionsonrespondents(Questions3-4)

Question3.Wheredoyouwork?❏ University❏ Department of a National Research Centre (e.g. CNR, CNRS, National

Academy,etc.)❏ IndependentResearchCentre(publicorprivate)❏ CulturalInstitution(Library,Museum,Archive,etc.)❏ Other:_______________________About two thirds of the respondentswork in a University; one-fifthworks in anationalresearchcentre.

4

Question4.Inwhichdomainisyourmainresearchinterest?Thedomain isdefinedaccording to thePARTHENOSdefinition inD2.1.They includealso theapplicationofdigitaltechnologiestothedomain.Pleaseindicatethemostrelevantsubject.❏ History (in a broad sense: including Medieval Studies, Recent History, Art

History,Epigraphy,etc.)❏ Language Studies (including Literature, Linguistics, Philology, Language

Technology,etc.)❏ Archaeology, Heritage & Applied Disciplines (including Cultural Heritage,

Museums,Preservation/Conservation,etc.)❏ Digitaltechnologies❏ Other:_______________________The domain definition is taken from the PARTHENOS report “Report on usersrequirements”,whichdefinesthegroupingslistedabove.Itwasassumedthattheexplanationsummarilygiven in the formwasclearenoughalso for respondentsnotknowingthePARTHENOSreport.Thedistribution

2isratherbalancedamongLanguagestudies(32%),History(22%)

and Cultural Heritage (27%). The others mainly work on digital technologies(11%),withafewnotbelongingto(ornotrecognisingthemselvesin)anyofthePARTHENOScategories.

2Notethatthepercentagesinthediagramsareautomaticallycalculatedbythesoftwarebyrounding the figures, and thus they sometime may total to 99.9% or 100.1%. Such aroundingerrorisirrelevantforourpurposes.

5

3.Importanceofcomputer-basedwork(Questions5-6)

Questions#5and#6concern the respondents’perceptionof the importanceofdigitaltechnologiesintheirwork.Question#5aimsatidentifyingthecharacteristicsofthe“digitallearnedness”ofthe sample: only a small fraction does not acknowledges to be a “digitalresearcher”.

Question5.Howimportantiscomputer-basedworkforyourresearch?❏ Indispensable❏ Veryimportant❏ Important❏ Oflittleimportance❏ Ofnoimportance

About80%stateit isabsolutelyorveryimportant;onlyforlessthan10%itisoflittle importance.This confirms thehypothesis that the researchers interviewedbelongtothecategoryof“digitalresearchers”.

6

Question#6concernsinsteadtheresearchers’appreciationoftheimportanceofdigital technologies in their research domain, regardless of their individualactivity.

Question6.Howimportantiscomputer-basedworkforresearchinyourdomain?❏ Indispensable❏ Veryimportant❏ Important❏ Oflittleimportance❏ Ofnoimportance

A large majority (77%) believes that computers are indispensable or veryimportantfortheirdomain,withalmostalltheothersqualifyingitasimportant.Since the scale of importance may be a little fuzzy, we may state that theimportance of computer-based research is, not surprisingly, acknowledged byabout90%oftheanswers.

It is interesting tonote thatby inspecting individual answers, it results that thefewoneswho indicatedigital technologiesasbeingof little importance in theirdomainalsodeclare themselvesasnotbeingcomputer-skilled;on thecontrary,some researchers who do not consider themselves as computer users deem,nonetheless,suchtechnologiesasveryimportantfortheirresearchdomain

7

4.TheFAIRprinciples(Question7)

Question7.DoyouknowwhataretheFAIRprinciples?❏ Yes❏ Yes,butinaverygenericway❏ No

The FAIRprinciples are relatively little known.Only about one third states theyknowthem,whileanotherthirddeclarestoknowthemonlyinagenericway,andtheremainingthirdhasnoinformationaboutthem.

8

5.TheEOSCconcept(Questions8-9)

Question8.HowwelldoyouknowtheEOSCconcept?❏ Prettywell❏ Ihavesomegeneralknowledgeofit❏ Ihaveonlyalimitedknowledgeofit❏ Ihavenoinformationatall

Onlylittlemorethan10%knowsabouttheconcept.Anadditional20%hassomeinformation, while the remaining 70% has very little or no information at all(50%).Comparingsuchresultswiththoseofthepreviousquestion,itemergestheexistenceof a groupof aboutone thirdof the communityof the totalwhich isreasonably informed, while the remaining two thirds are unaware. The FAIRprinciplesaremorepopularthantheEOSC.

9

Question 9. Do you think that the EOSC concept should be better known byresearchers?❏ Yes, it is of primary importance that researchers knowbetter theEOSCand

howitwillimpactontheirwork❏ Yes, but it is not an urgent matter, a general information on the EOSC is

probablysufficient❏ Ihavenopreciseideaaboutthisissue❏ IthinkitisnotsoimportantthatresearchersknowaboutEOSCastheirfocus

isonresearch❏ IthinkthatEOSCisirrelevanttoimprovethequalityofresearchinmydomain❏ Idonotknow

It must be noted that nobody chose the very negative answers “It is not soimportant to know about EOSC” or “EOSC is irrelevant”; only 9% think thatimproving knowledge about the EOSC is not an urgent matter. The majoritysimplystated“noidea”.

10

6.TheEOSCpilotproject(Question10)

Question10.DoyouknowabouttheEOSCpilotEUproject?❏ Iaminvolvedinit❏ IamnotinvolvedbutknowenoughaboutthisprojectIhaveheardsomething

aboutit❏ IhavenoinformationaboutthisprojectAmongtherespondents,thereare6peopleinvolvedinEOSCpilotinvariousways.Therearealsoafewoutlierswhodon’tknowabouttheEOSC,butclaimtoknowaboutEOSCpilot.Apartfromthat,thepopularityofEOSCpilotfollowstheoneofEOSC,withsimilar,notencouraging,percentages;butalmostallthosewhohaveanideaoftheEOSCconceptalsodeclaretoknowtheEOSCpilotproject.

7.FAIRandEOSCknowledgebydomain

Thecasesof limitedknowledgeof these twoconceptswasanalysedbydomainandtheresultsareshownbelow.Thepiechartsrefertothedomainpercentageon the total of respondentswith limitedorno knowledge; thebar chart showsinsteadthepercentageofresearcherswithlittleornoknowledgeonthetotalofrespondents, by domain: for example, of all the respondents having limitedknowledgeoftheFAIRprinciples,19%belongtothedomainofCH(piechart);ofall the respondents from the CH domain, 26% states to have limited or noknowledgeoftheFAIRprinciples(barchart).The proportion of the uninformed is similar on both topics, with a surprisingpresenceofresearchersinthefieldofdigitaltechnologies.Thereis,ingeneral,aslightlybetterawarenessforbothtopicsamongCHresearchers.

11

12

8.Answerstoopenquestions

Asalreadymentioned,answeringtothesequestionswasoptional,soabout30%of the respondents gave a significant answer here (i.e. excluding “no idea” andthe like): in practice, who responded to one question also responded to theothers.Thequestionsarethefollowing.

Question11.WhataretheservicesthatyourresearchcollaborationwouldbenefitfromasconsumerofEOSC?

Aboutonethirdoftheanswersindicatedstorageasthemainservice,withsomeadding data access and sharing. Searching is also a popular answer. Somemention Open Publication. Only few mention other services, in most casesmentionedgenericallyas“collaborationservices”,inotherssummarilydescribed.Onthenegativeside,threeanswerstatethatEOSCwouldbeofnouse,becauselocalornationalinfrastructuresalreadydothejob.

Question12.DoyouenvisagetheneedofsharedservicesthatEOSCcouldprovidewith central coordination, to take advantage of economies of scale and ensureharmonizationacrossdifferentproviders?

Mostoftheanswersreplywithasimple“Yes”.Afewgivesomehintsonwhysuchservices are needed, such as “cross-repository data access”, “standardization”,“costreduction”andsoon.Oneisskepticalbecauseisafraidoftheriskthatrulesbureaucratically imposed from top limit the freedom of choosing the mostappropriate processing tools. A couple of answers indicate a preference forcentralized,butdomain-relatedservices(andrepositories).Onthepessimistside,there is concern about privacy, fit to domain needs, or generic fear that thedrawbackisbiggerthanthebenefits.

Question13.WhatcriteriashouldtheEOSCservicesmeetinordertobeappealingtoyourresearchcollaboration?

Herethereismorediversityinanswers.Ingeneralfittouserneedsisacommonfeatureofmanyofthem,withoneadvocating“user-push”vs“technology-push”.Usabilityandeaseofuseisalsoacommonpoint.Othersmentiondataopenness,standardization, interoperability, data quality and trustworthiness, scientificrecognition to data creators, and easy access. One respondent describes here(probably because itwas themost appropriate place to do so) the difficulty ofoperatingwithoutnational political support,what for examplemakes a generaladoptionoftheFAIRprinciplesadifficultobjective.HerequiresEOSCtoadvocatethisgoodcauseat thepolitical level,perhapsmeaning themainstreamingof itsprinciplesatalllevels,althoughitisunclearwhoshouldbeinchargeofthis.

13

Question14.What servicesand resources (e.g. data, publications, softwareandotherdigitalartefacts) couldyouprovide for sharing, thirdpartyaccessandusethroughtheEOSC?

Perhapsunexpectedly,mostoftherespondentsoffertoolsandotherresourcesofvarious kind, but all potentially significant, implicitly suggesting that a super-servicetosupportthemigrationofsuchresourcestotheEOSCframeworkcouldberelevant.

Question 15. How do you see your role in fostering the uptake of the FAIRprinciplesinyourenvironment?

AnswerstothisquestionshowagreatwillingnesstoadvocatetheFAIRprinciples.People state that they avail of their role or position to foster their adoption. Asuggested, interesting way of doing so concerns education and training. Someanswers state that the adoption of the principles by the respondent is anexemplary practice that others may be induced to follow. On the contrary, acouple of respondents highlight the issues deriving from the lack of politicalsupport, what prevents them to be able to foster the uptake of the FAIRprinciples.

Overall, the fact that about 30% of the respondents tried to give concretesuggestions, although sometimes generic and imprecise, shows that there is anactiveexpectationfortheEOSCandpeopleisconvincedabouttheFAIRprinciplesandreadytoadvocatethem.

9.Conclusionsandsuggestedactions

Evenfromqualitativeresultssuchasthoseresultingfromthissurvey,itispossibleto get some insights about the current attitude of the DH+L+CH researchcommunitytowardstheEOSCandtheactionsrequiredtoimproveit.

Thesurveyresultsmaybesummarizedasfollows:

• Therespondentsarecommittedtocomputer-basedresearch;about80%ofthemstatethatdigitaltechnologyisveryimportantfortheirworkandtheircommunity;

• Intheanswerstotheopenquestions,amajorityseesintheEOSCameantofoster access and data sharing, also acknowledging that this requiresinteroperabilityandstandardization;

• Indicationsonservicesaremoregeneric,withaclearpreferenceforsearch-and-find,anddatapost-processingandre-processing;

• TheFAIRprinciplesandtheEOSCareconceptsstilluncleartomany.

14

Thus,a first setofactions required,andviable in theshort term, shouldaimatraisingtheawarenessoftheresearchcommunityabouttheformalizationofwhatisalreadyperceivedasagenericneed.Thiscouldbeaccomplishedbysettingupaseries of thematic workshops introducing the FAIR principles and the EOSCthrough domain-related use-cases. Their preparation should build on theknowledgeableoneswho should setupdemosofhowexisting servicesmaybeimprovedinacloudenvironment.Theyshouldalsoincludedemonstrationsofthecurrentlyavailablecloudservicesproposedbydifferenttechnologicalactors.A second set of actions, also possible with the available resources and in areasonably short time frame, should examine and propose training andeducationalsolutionsto improvetheknowledgeof thecommunity, forexampleabout topics such as data stewardship from the domain perspective, inpreparationofeducationalprogramsonsuchtopics.Such actions should ultimately lead to the definition of user requirements in abottom-upway,which is still difficult due to the gapsevidencedby the survey,andthereforeisstilldelegatedtoafewexpertstryingtointerpret,inearnest,theneedsoftheirreferencecommunity.On the other hand, such actions should prepare the evaluation of currentlyavailable tools in the light of EOSC and the definition of new ones to beimplemented in the cloud framework. The main action, on this regard, shouldinclude thedefinitionofapipeline tobringalreadyavailable services ina cloudenvironment, as for example it is being done with the EOSCpilot ScienceDemonstrators. Creating a standard procedure for such tasks could greatlyimprovetheeffectivenessofthejob.Finally, complete and exemplary use cases should be developed in the cloudenvironment.Thiswouldserveasconvincingdemonstratorstowardsresearchers,and stimulate the implementation of other workflows, typical of the researchactivitiesoftheDH+L+CHcommunity.

15

ContactsThePARTHENOSproject:www.parthenos-project.euProjectcoordinator:franco.niccolucci@pin.unifi.it