INKE Administrative Structure: Omnibus Document

Lynne Siemens & Ray Siemens
University of Victoria

Richard Cunningham
Acadia University

Teresa Dobson
University of British Columbia

Alan Galey
University of Toronto

Stan Ruecker
Illinois Institute of Technology

Claire Warwick
University College London

Abstract: This document reflects the distributed administrative structure to be put into practice by the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) group for the purpose of governing itself as it carries out work on its Major Collaborative Research Initiative (MCRI)-funded initiative. The INKE group consists of academic researchers, academic research partners (many invested as stakeholders as well), an international advisory board, a partners committee, individual research area groups (RAG) each with their own (co)leads who act as administrators for the group and form the overall RAG administrative group committee, and an executive committee (EC) that represents all areas of activity in the research endeavour and also includes an administrative/ management advisor (who carries out work and provides leadership on process, not research content) and a project manager. Taken as a whole, the structure of the group is an embodiment of the distributed administrative and authoritative principles that have evolved over the several years of the project‘s foundation, and the materials that follow have been assembled and authored by the entirety of the administrative team in that spirit. This document is also closely aligned with the processes outlined in two related documents: the annual calendar and the annual RAG planning process.

Keywords: INKE; Administration; Research; Collaboration

The INKE Research Group comprises over 35 researchers (and their research assistants and postdoctoral fellows) at more than 20 universities in Canada, England, the United States, and Ireland, and across 20 partners in the public and private sectors.  INKE is a large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary project to study the future of books and reading, supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada as well as contributions from participating universities and partners, and bringing together activities associated with book history and textual scholarship; user experience studies; interface design; and prototyping of digital reading environments.

Lynne Siemens is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, Canada V8N 1M5  Email: siemensl@uvic.ca

Ray Siemens is Canada Research Chair in Humanities Computing and Distinguished Professor in the Faculty of Humanities in English with cross appointment in Computer Science at the University of Victoria, PO Box 3070 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3W1 Email: siemens@uvic.ca

Richard Cunningham is an Associate Professor in the Department of English and Theatre, as well as Director at Acadia Media Centre at Acadia University, 15 University Avenue, Wolfville, NS, Canada B4P 2R6  Email: richard.cunningham@uacadia.ca

Teresa Dobson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Language and Literacy Education and Director of the Digital Literacy Centre at the University of British Columbia, 2329 West Mall Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4  Email: teresa.dobson@ubc.ca

Alan Galey is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Information at the University of Toronto, 27 King's College Circle, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 1A1  Email: alan.galey@utoronto.ca.

Stan Ruecker is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology, 350 North La Salle Street, 4th Floor, Chicago, IL, USA 60610  Email: sruecker@id.iit.edu

Claire Warwick is Professor of Digital Humanities and Head of the Department of Information Studies; Director of the UCL Centre for Digital Humanities; and Vice-Dean for Research for the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the University College London, Gower Street, London, UK WC1E 6BT  Email: c.warwick@ucl.ac.uk

Preamble

This document reflects the distributed administrative structure to be put into practice by the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) group for the purpose of governing itself as it carries out work on its initiative funded by Major Collaborative Research Initiative (MCRI). The INKE group consists of:

  1. academic researchers,
  2. academic research partners (many invested as stakeholders as well),
  3. an international advisory board,
  4. a partners committee,
  5. individual research area groups (RAG) each with their own (co)leads who act as administrators for the group and form the overall RAG administrative group committee, and
  6. an executive committee (EC) that represents all areas of activity in the research endeavour and also includes an administrative / management advisor (who carries out work and provides leadership on process, not research content) and a project manager. Taken as a whole, the structure of the group is an embodiment of the distributed administrative and authoritative principles that have evolved over the several years of the project’s foundation, and the materials that follow have been assembled and authored by the entirety of the administrative team in that spirit.

Ultimately, this document represents an agreement we have made with each other for how we will work together in pursuit of achieving the goals outlined in our research application, in recognition of the fact that the research funding is not made to specific individuals but, rather, to the group as a whole—on the basis that we as a group will make every attempt to follow the plans we have made to date.

This document is also closely aligned with the processes outlined in two related documents: the annual calendar and the annual RAG planning process.

Limitations

We note that we are doing something different here from typical small-group or individually-oriented Humanities research. Given the nature of the process used to originate what is manifest in this document, it is not surprising that some of the structures and even understood roles that are found in this document are defined in ways that are at a slight departure from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council (SSHRC) definitions – even though, in most cases, they reflect consultation with SSHRC guidelines, best practices (manifested in the MCRI program review), and the input of a number of external consultants including past MCRI directors and leaders and the research offices of a number of involved institutions. The INKE administrative team understands this, and the definition of roles and their interoperation is an attempt to augment those laid out by SSHRC. We realize, however, that ultimately we are in a position where, if the roles we have defined and the patterns of interoperation we’ve outlined fail, we must necessarily revert to our funding agency’s definitions and prescribed patterns of operation.

Concerns, conflicts, and grievances

As noted in the document, these issues are handled in via the line of authority laid out in the document. Concerns of this nature among the administrative group are handled through an email to the EC, via the director; the director will then circulate that email to the rest of the EC. Open communication is valued in INKE. Attempts to retain anonymity will be made only on request, and it cannot be guaranteed that these attempts will be successful.

Next steps, at time of origination

This document has and will see evolution as follows:

  1. tentative adoption of its operating principles at the 10 March 2008 INKE administrative meeting (which allows us to begin planning work for Year One);
  2. non-substantive editing by the project manager in March with substantive suggestions flagged for discussion by the administrative group at the end of March and possible revision reflecting the outcome of that discussion;
  3. reflection on the document and the operation it enables at a meeting of the administrative group in late May, and possible revision (including input by SSHRC and others at the April administrative meeting); and
  4. discussion among the administrative group toward recommending its full acceptance by the EC at that committee’s first meeting (with provision for discussion/revision of the document at each EC meeting, to ensure that there is a process to change the document and what it represents). This document was accepted by the EC on May 24, 2009.

Statement of management and administrative operations, from the application

To achieve our goals, this integrated program of research requires careful management to sustain collaboration and co-ordinate all research initiatives, as diagrammed below (arrows indicate the flow of discussion and contribution) and described as follows

Figure 1: INKE Supporting Administrative Structure

This structure privileges the contributions of each group, foregrounding the demands of the research and functioning bi-directionally.

In this structure, research groups operate under the detailed project plan from which this document is derived, and which has been developed in conjunction with our administrative and organizational advisors. Operations are carried out according to a project charter developed and agreed upon by the entire team. Integration and co-ordination, as well as oversight of work consistent with the project plan, take place in conjunction with the sub-area research administrative structure, the EC, the advisory board, and the partners committee. Representatives of the research area administrative structure meet via teleconference monthly, and the EC, the advisory board, and the partners committee meet by teleconference during the year as needed; each group meets in person at least once annually, with the exception of the advisory board. The EC will act as trustees of the project’s research direction and of the research budget, working in consultation with members of the advisory and partners groups, approving the release of research funds (via subcontract structure, and in consideration of our research plan) to individual areas and researchers based on an annual reporting cycle which includes evaluation of past work and next-stage work projection and budgeting. E-mail discussion groups will be established for each section management group, all researchers, and for postdoctoral and research assistants. Our management, administrative, and research structures support best practices identified in the SSHRC MCRI program performance report (Kishchuk, 2005), and the advisor to our administrative, management, and team research practices will play an integral part in identifying, introducing, supporting, and studying/evaluating the positive impact of these practices on our work.

Researchers

INKE researchers are:

As a member of the INKE research team, all researchers

More specifically, those who are listed as co-investigators on the INKE application are expected to:

Postdoctoral fellows, graduate and undergraduate assistants:

Intellectual property

Those working with INKE understand the value of conjoint collaboration in INKE’s research commons (methodological and informational), and understand:

  1. that the material (of any kind, and in any media) a researcher brings to INKE as part of their research involvement will become part of INKE’s research commons and remain among the material that INKE researchers may continue to draw upon in INKE work, with full acknowledgment of INKE and the originating researcher;
  2. that, should a researcher leave INKE, the material of the research commons (of any kind, and in any media) that was not explicitly in the leaving researcher’s origin can continue to be used in that researcher’s own research only with the explicit written permission of the INKE EC, and then it can only be used with full acknowledgment to INKE and the original researcher;
  3. INKE will retain first right of refusal for publication and commercialization of any work that the researcher undertakes with the INKE research commons;
  4. that all INKE researchers will use the work of others -– including those in the INKE group, and in the research commons -– with full acknowledgment of that work’s origins; and
  5. that those who make use of INKE materials of any kind, disseminated in any media and via any dissemination principles, do so with full acknowledgment of that work’s origins.

For presentations or papers where this work is the main topic, all team members should be co-authors. We will adopt the convention of listing the team itself, so that typically the third or fourth author will be listed as “INKE Research Group,” while the actual named authors will be those most responsible for the paper. The individual names of members of the INKE Research Group should be listed in a footnote, or where that isn’t possible, through a link to a web page. Any member can elect at any time not to be listed, but may not veto publication. For presentations or papers that spin off from this work, only those members directly involved need to be listed as co-authors. The others should be mentioned if possible in the acknowledgments, credits, or article citations.

It is noted that grievance, conflict, and other concerns will be handled via a line of authority structure, a line of authority structure, from graduate assistant (GRA)/research assistant/postdoctoral fellow to researcher to research area leader in the RAG structure to EC via the director, with those above in the line of authority copied on all documentation of the issue and its resolution. For example: if a GRA has demonstrated an inability to carry out their assigned responsibilities, the GRA will be warned by their immediate researcher, who will at the time of warning forward documentation, by e-mail, of problem areas and direction for improvement, copying by email that documentation to the RAG team leader and the director. A researcher may be dismissed or asked to resign if he or she continues to demonstrate an inability to carry out the foregoing responsibilities; in the case of dismissal, the research area leader, in conjunction with the INKE EC, will issue formal notice including a detailed justification in writing. Suspension of duties pending appeal will be effective immediately.

Research Area Groups Committee (RAG)

Sub-area research groups form the backbone of INKE’s research and administration. RAG leaders report to, and take direction from, the EC via the project director; members of Sub-Area Research Teams (researchers) report to RAG committee through their Sub-Area Research Team Leader(s). RAG leaders, established via the research application planning process, are active researchers themselves with administrative oversight of the work carried out in their research teams. They

  • writing, in consultation with team members and others, a detailed annual research plan explaining how INKE research goals will be accomplished and submitting this plan to the EC in order to acquire INKE research funds – all as reflected in the planning process
  • ensuring document or data exchanges between research area sub-groups according to the annual research plans
  • distributing funds to researchers, after approval of the research plan and budget by the EC (funds and research contracts to be coordinated at the University of Victoria, by the research office via the project manager);
  • liaising with relevant partners in order to ensure research integration and exchange;
  • undertaking dissemination activities and provide direction upon request from any member of their sub-area research team, researcher or partner, provided the request is identified as pertinent to the research of the sub-area research team (as per the researcher description);
  • handling RAG reporting duties, which require them to
  • receive and review Research Reports from individual active researchers (defined in the previous section) that itemize completed research tasks, note any dissemination relating to the research, provide the names of post-doctoral and graduate student personnel and the duration of their employment, and detail the funding and training opportunities provided those individuals;
  • synthesize material in a fashion consistent with these Research Reports with a view to submitting Sub-Area Team Reports to the project administrative space on a quarterly basis, and include in that additional materials required by the MCRI reporting structure;
  • present Research Area Team Reports in RAG committee meetings and inform researchers and partners of published reports on a quarterly basis;
  • organize activities relating to the sub-area conference in the year specified in the INKE Grant text, including
  1. arranging hosting, advertising, assuming program chair (or co-chair) duties, and making local arrangements for the event;
  2. editing the sub-area research team research volume emerging from the aforementioned conference in accordance with the timeline stipulated in the INKE Grant text;
  3. disseminating (including publishing and presenting) INKE work within and beyond the academic community according to the presentation and publication schedule outlined in the INKE Grant text and in the year-by-year project plans for each area,
  • recognizing that, like researchers who leave the project, if they leave the project (for whatever reason) they relinquish all rights to the research and research products of the INKE team, and sole rights to those they created themselves with INKE funding.

The foregoing are the minimum responsibilities expected of members of the RAG committee. Other considerations follow.

Researchers and research partners/Associate researchers and associate research partners

Partners in our research – individual researchers, research teams, and larger groups and entities of several types – play integral roles in INKE in advisory, consultative, active research, and associative capacities. At INKE’s inception, consultations involved building research relationships with individual researchers in key areas of endeavour and partner groups in the stakeholder areas most pertinent to our program of research.

Researchers

With researchers, this has ensured appropriate representation and expertise in areas key to our anticipated work. INKE’s initial researcher network was established in the time leading to the application to the MCRI program, and includes Ray Siemens (University of Victoria), Richard Cunningham (Acadia University), Teresa Dobson (University of British Columbia), Alan Galey (University of Toronto), Stan Ruecker (University of Alberta), Susan Schreibman (Irish Academy), Claire Warwick (University College London), Michael Best (University of Victoria), Ann Blandford (University College London), Lynn Copeland (Simon Fraser University), James Cummings (University of Oxford), Wendy Duff (University of Toronto), Michael Eberle-Sinatra (University of Montréal), Janet Fast (University of Alberta), Julia Flanders (Brown University), Christopher Fletcher (University of Alberta), Dominic Forest (University of Montréal), David Gants (University of Florida), Bertrand Gervais (Université  du Québec à Montréal), Matthew Kirschenbaum (University of Maryland), Richard Kopak (University of British Columbia), Pierre Lévy (University of Ottawa), Alan Liu (University of California at Santa Barbara), Karon Maclean (University of British Columbia), Shawn Martin (University of Pennsylvania), David Miall (University of Alberta), Brent Nelson (University of Saskatchewan), Marc Plamondon (Nipissing University), Milena Radzikowska (Mount Royal College), Geoffrey Rockwell (University of Alberta), Lynne Siemens (University of Victoria), Stéfan Sinclair (McMaster University), Christian Vandendorpe (University of Ottawa), Josée Vincent (Université de Sherbrooke), Paul Werstine (King's University College, University of Western Ontario), John Willinsky (Stanford University and University of British Columbia), and Matthew Zimmerman (Irish Academy).

Partners

With partners, these relationships ensure our direct involvement in essential stakeholder areas, including: general and scholarly publishing (together with open-access publication); public and academic libraries; educational software development; computing science and information management; standards development for electronic texts; disciplinary departments in the humanities; professional readers; and members of the reading public. Partners also play an important role in the technology transfer associated with the prototypical computing interfaces that INKE will produce; by participating in ongoing discussion about and planning of the research program, and by indicating how such work might best serve interests beyond those of pure research, all partners will continue their own pioneering efforts in the areas engaged by our work. INKE’s initial partnership network was established in the time leading to the application to the MCRI program, and includes the Canadian Association of Research Libraries / Association des bibliothèques de recherche du Canada, the Canadian Century Research Infrastructure project, the Canadian Research Knowledge Network, Ebrary, Early English Books Online, Text Creation Partnership, the Electronic Literature Organisation, the Folger Shakespeare Library, Incaa Designs, the Internet Shakespeare Editions, Nouvelles technologies / nouvelles textualités, the Oxford Text Archive, Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Proquest, the Public Knowledge Project, Service BC (BC Provincial Government), Synergies, the Text Encoding Initiative Consortium, Transliteracies, the Versioning Machine, and University of Alberta Press.

Existing types of researchers and partners

Non-exclusive categories of researcher and partnership involvement have since inception included:

New: associate researchers and associate research partners

Since receiving news of the award, INKE has learned to recognize that one function of MCRI program funding is for MCRI groups to function as a locus of research activity in areas of MCRI funding, creating an identifiable research network around this locus—and, by extension, it can be seen as a mission of our group to create possibilities in this direction as well.

Associate researchers and associate research partners, two newer types of INKE researcher and partner, can be seen as an essential part of this activity. Associate researchers and partners can fall into any of our non-exclusive partner categories, providing that they meet the appropriate criteria and follow the process of admission outlined below.

Associate researchers and associate research partners: Process for admission, and criteria for assessment

Advisory and consultative associate researchers and partners have research and stakeholder agendas with key elements that are closely aligned with INKE’s research agenda, and can contribute in meaningful ways to INKE’s agenda and that of the communities INKE engages. Active associate researchers and partners fit similarly, and more specifically:

The process of admitting an associate researcher or partner is handled via a detailed letter of request, and pertinent appendices, to the EC on behalf of the researcher or partner, and submitted as a single package by one of the RAG leaders as champion for that potential associate. This letter makes the case for partnership employing the terms of the category of association being requested. Since requests for association will be seen to be particularly desirable in areas where INKE teams recognize a particular need for partner representation, this should be addressed in the letter as well. Further, a number of pertinent details about the pragmatics of that association must be documented in the letter and via attachments to the letter before the process of admission can proceed, including

  1. the name of the associate, affiliation (academic and group, if pertinent), contact information (surface mail, phone/fax, and electronic), and CV of research lead;
  2. the project title and description, plus URL;
  3. the total number of researchers involved in the association/number who will be involved in INKE-allied activities (these must be named);
  4. the total amount of research resources involved (funding, and in-kind)/amount of research resources that will be involved in INKE-allied activities; and
  5. indication that the associate acknowledges and understands the terms and conditions of association as outlined in the document, and documents referred to in this document.

The decision for admission of association lies with the EC, in consultation with the chair or all of the partners committee and possibly other members of the RAG committee, and will be handled in as timely a fashion as the schedule of the EC allows.

Partners Committee

The main role of the partners committee, as described in the research application, is in representing our stake-holding research partners in the work carried out by INKE.

What does the Chair of the Partners Committee do?

What do members of the INKE Partners Committee do?

Further details

The International Advisory Board (IAB)

Serves as a consultative body for the INKE group

The foregoing are the minimum responsibilities expected of members of the IAB and of the INKE EC relative to each other. The IAB is understood to have no further responsibilities to the INKE Project, nor any of its members as pertains to the INKE Project, except as they may agree to as the project progresses. The EC is understood to have no further responsibilities to the IAB or members thereof, except as may develop as the project progresses. The aforesaid notwithstanding, the EC is understood to have duties and responsibilities to the INKE Project beyond those articulated in this document.

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee (EC) is comprised of Ray Siemens (as project director, and chair of the committee), and a lead representative from each of the research sub-area groups (Richard Cunningham (TS), Claire Warwick (UX), Ray Siemens (IM), and Stan Ruecker (ID), plus ex officio the chair of the advisory board, the chair of the partners committee, the project manager, our administrative/management advisor, and a student research assistant representative. 
The EC has the following duties, working roughly as captured by the ionformation above:

  • At the annual meeting, it approves the release of research funds to research area sub-groups and its researchers, based on an annual reporting cycle, which includes evaluation of past work and next-stage work projection and budgeting. Internal reporting, management, and planning remain the role of the research sub-area groups. Decision making is minuted, and all actions that are not able to be handled by consensus will be passed by majority vote of the voting members.
  • It releases funds via a subcontract structure with RAG leaders and researchers, and in consideration of the research plan and fulfillment of annual planning and reporting structures. In all but exceptional cases, it releases 75% of funds at the outset of the annual research plan, and the remaining 25% at point of review of successful completion; the only exceptional case noted is that of the requirements of University College London (UCL) accounting system.
  • Operates under similar conflict-of-interest guidelines in decision-making as SSHRC. Specifically, this is in reference to discussion of, and voting on, research sub-area groups’ reports, research plans, and budget proposals. Here, we invite the EC representative of the RAG to present and answer questions relating to reports, research plans, and budget proposals, but leave the room for committee discussion and voting; in cases where this applies to the Director, a deputy will be appointed to chair this part of the EC meeting’s proceedings.
  • Meets in person once a year, with provision for teleconferencing for some members at this time. Meets by teleconference throughout the year, as needed, called by the Director. A majority of voting members must be present for quorum to be reached, though it is understood that it is preferable for all members of this committee to be present at meetings.
  • Is the top of the line of authority structure that governs the relationships in our administrative structure and handles grievances and complaints, and acts as the chief authority on issues of INKE dissemination, the chief contact point for SSHRC and the media, is responsible for gathering materials relating to reporting and other administrative cycles of the grant; and, through the Director, is responsible for the project manager, being the project manager’s direct report.

The EC must be in a position to respond to demands of the funding agency, further details of which will become evident at the April 2009 meeting of the Program Officers at the University of Victoria. It must ensure that all structures – management, administrative, research, and otherwise – support best practices identified in the SSHRC MCRI program performance report (Kishchuk, 2005;  http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/mcri_performance_e.pdf) and the advisor to our administrative, management, and team research practices will play an integral part in identifying, introducing, supporting, and studying / evaluating the positive impact of these practices on our work. 
Related documentation, if any is required, may include the following; this could also be handled by extension of this document:

Project manager relationships:

Responsibilities:

Funding agency

We note, as well, the involvement of the funding agency in our work, including

Stakeholders and the general public (from the grant application)

Note: This is section 8 of the grant application. Full reflection of how we have discussed integrating stakeholders is spread across the application. 
Our list of partners was constructed by identifying stakeholder areas, then building research relationships with groups representing key stakeholder areas. Thus, representatives of stakeholder areas pertinent to our work manifest themselves as involved research partners – having committed to our cluster collaborations and shaped the program of research we propose here; this group remains as per our earlier application. While participating in discussion about the research program for the past three years, and by indicating how such research might best serve interests beyond those of pure research, those involved have also continued their own pioneering efforts in the areas engaged by our work and promise to do so as our work together continues. Another important role our stake-holding research partners will play is in the technology transfer associated with the prototypical computing interfaces for books and electronic book objects that our work will produce; many are in the position of developing and bringing out the prototypes for widespread use. 
We wish especially to highlight the fact that our work is likely to have a very broad stakeholder community: from the general and professional reader to Kindergarten to Grade 12 education to the corporate world of information technology and design. In 2007, we organized a symposium involving both academic and corporate presenters (including representatives of Microsoft Research and Hewlett Packard Labs) and as a result were invited by Microsoft Research to present a position paper on our work at the BooksOnline'08 Workshop at CIKM (Warwick, C., Siemens, R., Ruecker, S., & the INKE team, 2008). Our research is known and of interest to some of the most well known international information technology corporations, and we plan to expand their knowledge of our work via further research-related activities such as these symposiums, and further with indirectly affiliated groups such as NINES (Networked Infrastructure for Nineteenth-century Electronic Scholarship), the Digital Library Foundation’s Aquifer Project, IBM’s Many Eyes Project, MONK (Metadata Offer New Knowledge), and SEASR (Software Environment for the Advancement of Scholarly Research). 
Stakeholder areas essential to our work include those in: general and scholarly publishing (including open-access publication); public and academic libraries; educational software development; information management and computing science; standards development for electronic texts and other materials; government agencies; Kindergarten to Grade 12 and university education; humanities and social sciences disciplines; professional readers; and members of the reading public, who read online. Beyond these, specific impacted areas also include those, worldwide, in:

Project Charter

PROJECT NAME: INKE
Research Project Charter
DATE: 7 July 2009

This charter is to be understood within the context of the administrative governance documents and the INKE grant. It is subject to review and update by majority vote of the admin leaders.

Principles

  1. We are interested in disseminating the results of this project as widely as possible, with credit to us for doing it.
  2. We will move the work forward according to the research schedule that we are committed to SSHRC to deliver, including the various timelines/milestones, budgets, students, and activities described in the INKE grant.
  3. We would prefer for this work to generate further projects that can also be funded.
  4. We will ensure that everyone on the project has access not only to our research results, but also to our working documents.
  5. We wish to communicate in such a way as to preserve professional dignity.
  6. We will guide ourselves by reference to the SSHRC MCRI best practices document, which is entitled PERFORMANCE REPORT: SSHRC’s Major Collaborative Research Initiatives (MCRI) Program
  7. We will strive for transparency in decision making and communication.
  8. We will actively involve our organizational partners in the project.
  9. We will try to take this opportunity to learn more about project management of large teams.
  10. We would like to foster goodwill among all the participants.
  11. We will work collaboratively.
  12. We will support the development of graduate students in content expertise and collaborative skills.
  13. We will recognize both individual and shared intellectual property.
  14. We acknowledge that time commitments should remain manageable for all participants.

References

Kishchuk, Natalie. (2005). Performance Report: SSHRC's Major Collaborative Research Initiatives (MCRI) Program. Ottawa, ON: SSHRC. URL: http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/mcri_performance_e.pdf [January 5, 2009].

SSHRC. (2011). Major Collaborative Research Initiatives. Ottawa, ON: SSHRC. URL: http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/mcri-gtrc-eng.aspx [January16, 2011].

Warwick, Claire, Siemens, Ray, Ruecker, Stan, & the INKE team. (2008). Codex Redux: Books and New Knowledge Environments. Books Online 2008 workshop. ACM 17th Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2008) Napa Valley, California. New York, NY: ACM.

CCSP Press
Scholarly and Research Communication
Volume 3, Issue 1, Article ID 010113, 21 pages
Journal URL: www.src-online.ca
Received August 17, 2011, Accepted November 15, 2011, Published March 26, 2012

Siemens, Lynne, Siemens, Ray, Cunningham, Richard, Dobson, Teresa, Galey, Alan, Ruecker, Stan, & Warwick, Claire. (2012). INKE Administrative Structure: Omnibus Document. Scholarly and Research Communication, 3(1): 010113, 21 pp.

© 2012 Lynne Siemens, Ray Siemens, Richard Cunningham, Teresa Dobson, Alan Galey, Stan Ruecker, & Claire Warwick. This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.