Collaborative notes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gtgit

Note to organisers: Aiming for this to be an IG kick-off once our IG proposal is approved (aiming to submit before end of April 2025) however the session can also run as a pre-kick BoF off if the proposal hasn’t yet been approved by RDA TAB.

This meeting will build on discussions at VP24, P23 and VP22 and their outcomes and supports the imminent submission of a proposal to set up an Interest Group. The previous three BoF sessions moved from talking about Non Traditional Research Outputs (NTROs) to a more focussed approach on the creative and performing arts  and now back again to NTROs – with enabling infrastructure for FAIR NTROs and Processes – rather that the historical approach to class these outputs as OTHER and an add on to the existing landscape . This focus has been formed based on discussions across the three previous plenaries as we have seen momentum build and positioning this work around the concept of  NTROs and Processes works as:

1. it is a globally recognised concept
2. it acknowledges outputs and processes
3. it is inclusive and enables contributions from a broad range of discipline and domain communities.

We have built the support necessary to ensure success of an Interest Group, the appropriate mechanism for the level of maturity of this work to allow us to continue to build this global community. It also provides a foundation from which to proactively engage with individuals and communities (including those with a discipline focus) not yet engaged with RDA into discussions which will benefit the broader RDA ecosystem in addition to connecting up with RDA groups who are also discussing similar issues. 

The [link to] draft statement of work has had input from a range of individuals, will be submitted by end of April 2025, and we continue to use it for engagement with a range of communities beyond RDA.

The objectives of this meeting are:

1. Launch the Interest Group (or act as the pre-launch/address TAB feedback if the Interest Group isn’t yet approved).
2. Review and update the stakeholder map (identify further interested people who represent, sit within, and/or support these communities). Prioritise connections with:
   1. Aligned RDA Groups 
   2. Open and community infrastructure providers (e.g. DataCite, ORCID, Open Alex, Crossref, RAiD)
   3. Research data and output repositories, digital preservation and software management
   4. Discipline/community led consortia and projects that exist within NTRO rich communities
3. Review, discuss and update the draft work plan, identify any gaps, and prioritise items.
4. Connect with communities based in Australia who have not yet had the chance to engage in discussions (though we have identified a third co-chair based in Australia).
5. Continue to provide a space for two-way conversations to take place to that help identify relevant co-design approaches and pathways to community-driven implementation

Our BoF at VP24 gathered 15 people from across 8 countries, demonstrating international interest in a range of Non Traditional Research Outputs, Processes and Impacts. This confirmed that there is support from the RDA community to take this work forward. It indicated there is much work to be done, that some of this work is taking place elsewhere (within and outside of RDA) and that we need to be clear about immediate priorities to focus on what we hope to address so that it’s achievable and useful to enable real progress. There is a need to ensure the work of this group both informs aligned work taking place elsewhere and that its outcomes are framed to also benefit traditional outputs.

Key outcomes included:

1. A need to agree on scope (all research data will make it very difficult to progress this work – focussing on elements of NTROs not currently well served (by RDA) will enable us to move forward and potentially benefit research data in general). 
2. While other RDA conversations have discipline communities embedded within RDA, there is a lack of representation from discipline communities who create NTROs. Our co-design approach will enable us to address this over time.
3. We must take this work forward in a way to ensure that maximizes the likelihood of universal uptake is possible while acknowledging that national and regional differences will lead to sometimes disparate implementations. 
4. Need to focus on priorities to enable infrastructural and systemic changes that to enable visibility (and FAIR) for NTROs. While there was much mention of NTROs being discussed in evaluation forums – the Co-chairs feel that the primary focus needs to be on better reflecting and evidencing NTROs within the open standards landscape.
5. Understanding what discipline communities value and enabling the capturing of the impact of these outputs and processes needs to be a key outcome of this work.

1. Introductions [10]
2. Recap from VP24 [10]
3. Review, update and prioritise stakeholder engagement map (includes identifying gaps) [15]
4. Review, update and prioritise workplan (includes identifying gaps) [45]
5. Next steps [10]

P24 session Non Traditional Research Outputs (NTROs) Interest Group and link to notes

P23 session Proposal for IG: Data, process and NTRO in the creative and performing arts and link to notes

P22 (virtual) session NTRO gaggle boosting non text support through experiential and collaborative effort 

Almevik, G., & Westin, J. (2022). Rethinking the Academic Artefacts. Kriterium. https://doi.org/10.21524/kriterium.40.b

Assis, P. de, & D’Errico, L. (2019). Artistic Research: Charting a Field in Expansion. Rowman & Littlefield.

Collins, S. G., Durington, M., & Gill, H. (2017). Multimodality: An Invitation. American Anthropologist, 119(1), 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12826

Dattatreyan, E. G., & Marrero-Guillamón, I. (2019). Introduction: Multimodal Anthropology and the Politics of Invention. American Anthropologist, 121(1), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13183

Evans, J., Vials Moore, A., Bailey, H., Basford, J., Kotarski, R., Mead, J., Ranger, H., Stone, A., Watts, N., & White, N. (2023). Practice Research Voices (PRVOICES): Final report and recommendations [Project report]. University of Westminster. https://doi.org/10.34737/w3803

Evans, J., Vials Moore, A., Kotarski, R., & Stone, A. (2023). Telling a story with metadata or Always drink upstream from the herd: What if your metadata isn’t properly represented in the stream? Information Services & Use, 43(3–4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-230208

Franzen, S. (2020). Digital Transformations: Integrating Ethnographic Video into a Multimodal Platform. In J. W. Crowder, M. Fortun, R. Besara, & L. Poirier (Eds.), Anthropological Data in the Digital Age: New Possibilities – New Challenges. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24925-0

Hook, D. W., Porter, S. J., & Herzog, C. T. (2022, September 7). Questioning the coming age of multimodal research infrastructure. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6957236

Increasing the Visibility of NTROs (2021-2022). (n.d.). COKI. Retrieved January 21, 2025, from https://openknowledge.community/projects/increasing-the-visibility-of-ntros-2021-2022/

Jackson, T., Knowles, C. , McLaughlin, S. et al. (4 more authors) (2023) Sustaining Practice Assets for Research, Knowledge, Learning and Engagement (SPARKLE) : Final Report and Recommendations. Report. University of Leeds , Leeds. https://doi.org/10.48785/100/296 

Knöchelmann, M. (2019). Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities? Publications, 7(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040065

Lurk, T., & Burger, F. (2022). Searching for artistic research? A study between disciplines, interests, policies and systems. Art Libraries Journal, 47(2), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/alj.2022.4

Pearce, G., Clift, J., Neish, P., Ratana, P. & Reeson, T. (2024). FAIR and Open Non-Traditional Research Outputs Project Report. Zenodo. Retrieved April 18, 2025 from https://zenodo.org/records/13357713 

Ranger, H., Evans, J. & Vials Moore, A. (2024). A DOI is not enough – Can practice research be captured by libraries and archives? (2024, July 2). Impact of Social Sciences. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/07/02/a-doi-is-not-enough-can-practice-research-be-captured-by-libraries-and-archives/

Scoping the connections between trusted arts and humanities data repositories. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2024, from https://blogs.bl.uk/digital-scholarship/2022/03/scoping-the-connections-between-trusted-arts-and-humanities-data-repositories.html

Takaragawa, S., Smith, T. L., Hennessy, K., Alvarez Astacio, P., Chio, J., Nye, C., & Shankar, S. (2019). Bad Habitus: Anthropology in the Age of the Multimodal. American Anthropologist, 121(2), 517–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13265

Westmoreland, M. R. (2022). Multimodality: Reshaping Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 51(1), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-121319-071409