National Digital Cultural Content Creation Strategies

Introduction

This meeting in Washington is the second of those organised under the broad umbrella of "National Digital Cultural Content Creation Strategies", and the activity continues to attract interest from amongst those invited and more widely in the community.

The first meeting, held in London in July of 2001, was very much a reaction by individuals at UKOLN, Resource and CIMI to their perception that there was a significant investment in activities around the creation of digitised cultural content, that there were commonalities to be found and exploited across these initiatives, and that the broad range of issues fell outside the scope of any single extant organisation. We therefore called a meeting in order to explore the extent to which members of the community shared our perceptions.

Both of these meetings have proved useful in progressing debate, and in raising issues, but it has proved difficult in the current loosely organised and financially unsupported model to make progress as substantial as might be hoped with background papers, expansive background research, etc. This raises a set of issues and questions, which are briefly outlined here in order to start debate during the meeting itself.

1.  Should this group continue?

The original premise in calling the meeting in London was that there was a shared interest, internationally, in exploring a range of issues around the creation, delivery and sustainability of digital cultural content creation programmes. It was also felt that, although many organisations occupy a position of authority for parts of the problem, or for most of the problem across a limited geographic space, no single organisation saw the entirety of the problem as within their mandate.

This would still appear to be the case. Can this group usefully fulfil a role here?

2.  (If Yes,) What should this group seek to achieve?

A Forum for exchange of experiences

On one level, a gathering such as this forms an entirely useful and valuable purpose in serving as a forum in which those managing the tackling of similar problems can come together with colleagues from around the world whom they would not normally have the opportunity to meet.

At this level, activities could presumably continue much as they are, with little or no need for change. One or more organisations could host a meeting every 6-12 months, with attendees meeting their own costs of attendance.

A voice for common concerns

As above, but with some work to continue and expand our existing Position Statements, and to encourage adoption and sign-up from across the community.

In addition to continuing to hold meetings, there would be effort required in drafting, editing (more than has been done on the current drafts), maintaining, and promoting these documents. This could conceivably be taken on by one or a small group of existing organisations, more or less within their existing remits.

Pools of knowledge

As above, but with the addition of a 'library' function, gathering documentation, research, and best practice from amongst constituents, hosting and aggregating these for the benefit of the community.

Harmonisation of knowledge

As above, but with effort expended to draw out common themes from existing documents, and to harmonise representation and meaning where feasible.

Activity such as this begins to become time-consuming, as even the existing Policy Research effort demonstrates. It appears likely that organisations would need to commit their own staff effort to tackling parts of this problem on behalf of the community, or else we explore mechanisms for pooling funding in order that people/groups/organisations can be paid to undertake this activity on the group's behalf.

Acquisition of new knowledge

As above, but moving beyond what is effectively literature review into active research around topics of interest to the group.

Driving the agenda

As above, but seeking a role in setting and driving agendas for the community as a whole. Rather than solely undertaking the preparation of Policy Research and the like, there would be the sense in which an identifiable organisation arising from this group took a place on the stage in order to advocate certain approaches to funders, policy setters and the like.

Activity on this level is both more complex and more expensive than those above, and would probably require the formation of some new organisation to carry these objectives forward, or the funding of one or more existing organisations to expand their remit in this direction.

3.  Levels of organisation

The various activities outlined in 2, above, clearly require differing levels of formalisation. Activities higher up the list are quite feasible with the existing setup, where small amounts of time are devoted to the initiative by staff at a number of organisations. As we move down the list, though, or as we wish to achieve more results more quickly, this becomes less feasible and there is a need for greater structure.

This structure might, at one level, take the form of existing organisations more formally committing staff time to the activity in a visible way. Alternatively, one or more organisations might receive funding from those with the ability to pay, in order that staff time could be bought out and devoted to this work. Finally, funding might be sought in order to create some entirely new organisation, financed and mandated to undertake this work.

Under any of these models, there would be a need to clarify relationships between those doing the work, those paying for it, and all of the other organisations either represented around the table (but neither contributing staff time nor funding beyond that required to attend meetings) or in the broader community.

4.  Relationships with existing activity

There are a number of organisations already active in shaping and promoting developments in this area. It would be vital to ensure that their work was built upon, and that duplication of effort or encroachment on interests were avoided.

5.  Paying the Price

If we are interested in pursuing a model that is likely to require significant quantities of staff effort, who pays? How do those who pay relate to those who do not? Do they, for example, have a greater say in setting future direction?

6.  What should we call 'it' ?!

Current naming is, I'm sure you'll agree, somewhat unwieldy! If we wish (and we may not) this activity to have any recognisable and tangible identity of its own, then a better name is called for. Amongst the organisers, we informally know it as 'Level 7', as our first meeting took place on the Seventh floor of the Tate Modern in London. Unfortunately, the name would appear to already be taken, several times over.

Information