Information Technology Planning Board
Meeting Summary
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
ITPB Attendees: Christine Borgman, Jim Davis, Robin Garrell, Bill Jepson, William Kaiser, David Kaplan, Patricia Keating, Kathleen Komar, Sam Morabito, Susan Parker (for Gary Strong), Marilyn Raphael, Janice Reiff, David Snow (for Alan Robinson), Art Toga, Christopher Waterman, Debbie Weissmann
Absent: Kathryn Atchison, Warren Mori, Alan Robinson, Gary Strong, Tim Stowell,
Guests: Ross Bollens, Carmela Cunningham, Diane Favro, Larry Loeher, Todd Presner, Nick Reddingius, Mike Schilling, Libbie Stephenson, Kent Wada, Willeke Wendrich, Andrew Wismiller, Don Worth
Agenda Item 1: Introductions/Approval of Summary
The March 11, 2009 summary was approved with the amendment of inserting the correct name (Laura Patterson) of the videoconference guest.
The February 11, 2009 summary had not been approved at the previous meeting. Bill Jepson requested that his question to David Ernst regarding cost overruns with the California State System be part of the record. The summary was approved pending the amendment.
Agenda Item 2: Infrastructure Requirements for New CI-Enabled Research Initiatives for IDRE-HASIS and Digital Humanities
Guests Todd Presner and Willeke Wendrich explained IDRE-HASIS and its purpose (Institute for Digital Research and Education/Humanities, Arts and Architecture, Social and Information Sciences). IDRE-HASIS is a collaboration/consortium to coordinate on-campus resources and support for researchers. The initiative is broad: bridging research between north and south campus, leading to participation by global audiences across disciplinary lines. Digital Humanities is the social cultural perspective that is also engaged in developing technology.
The objective is to initiate and support different kinds of interactions for researchers. The Digital Project Pipeline is designed to help researchers take an idea and develop it into a research project with the support of the IDRE-HASIS Core. The sharing of resources guarantees that researchers are not “reinventing the wheel.” This presents a different way of thinking for UCLA. Making resources visible via the Pipeline allows incubation of all ideas, including blended projects. Students also may access the Pipeline. The College has provided funding for 10 undergraduates on digital projects.
External funding is a major concern, but there are expanding research opportunities in digital humanities. These opportunities also will assist in developing best practices. The University of Virginia, MIT, Media Lab, USC and Stanford all are leaders in digital humanities research. UCLA is well poised to join and further define this field. Collaboration also makes it easier to begin an educational program.
Data management is of great concern. The sustainability, compatible platforms, consolidation of data, education and research concerns affect all projects, especially project between campuses and international institutions. Having IDRE is a benefit to collaboration and impacts other campus entities such as the library.
The Ahmanson Foundation has donated money to establish a new lab to be built on the first floor of YRL. The lab space will be similar to the sandbox on south campus. This will be used as a place where one can demonstrate scholarship.
Research itself is changing. Design of databases and of projects has evolved to include increasingly more technology. Technology is also influencing education; e.g., dissertations are no longer only bound text and can include technological aspects. To accommodate the expanding role of technology in research, the difficulties in working with other campuses needs to be addressed. Licensing is especially problematic when a research partner is from a European university.
Future cyberinfrastructure discussions will include data sustainability.
Agenda Item 3: Privacy Board Statement
A position statement was distributed to the Board. This statement attempts to cover a multitude of topics, including implications for monitoring and privacy versus academic freedom. The statement is meant to guide policy.
Five years ago, there were multiple problems with privacy on campus. The Privacy Board was created to establish a set of principles governing privacy issues. This statement is an attempt to address constituents’ expectations and remain in compliance with campus counsel (such as cooperating with law enforcement).
A question was raised with item 1f, “The purpose(s) for which the information can be used.” Does this mean that once data is collected a PI can decide to use it for another purpose? Discussion regarding the meaning of this point raised questions about who (or what body) approves the use of collected data and whether there is a judicial process to receive approval.
Agenda Item 4: Policy 404
The changes made to Policy 404 were discussed by the Board. Discussion ensued regarding the requirement for encryption of personal information and that the cost may be prohibitive for certain departments. Background checks continue as required by policy.
The Board passed a motion to endorse Policy 404.
Next meeting: Wednesday, May 20, 23167 YRL.