The Role and Future of Proprietary Software at an Open Science University

On December 10, 2024, the UDCC gathered together for its second Forum. With both returning and new participants, this meeting served as an opportunity to build upon the momentum of the UDCC’s initial outreach activities toward democratic and inclusive community building. Having been in official operation for only two months, the UDCC has made notable gains in collectivising and sharing knowledge across Utrecht University for people working in research support. Together, the UDCC is arriving at a place where participants can both articulate the value of this network and guide its activities.

Introducing the Open Agenda

The second Forum introduced one of the recurring pillars of the meeting, an Open Agenda for people across the university to share their work and the questions that they are presently encountering. This type of sharing builds upon the way people already work throughout the university and takes particular inspiration from the Research Data Management (RDM) Expert Meetings. 

In shining a light on activities happening at diverse faculties and institutes, new points of connection come into view. For example, we learned that several faculties are presently working independently on updating policy and protocol documents. Many expertise centers are working to update their trainings on research practices and issued calls to other network participants to collaborate on new programming in areas such as research data management or introductions to various software languages. The Open Agenda allows participants to strengthen relationships with one another and find mutual support.

Following up from our first Forum, René Adelerhof extended an invitation to join the working group Data Infrastructure Storage Collective (DISC). The group will meet twice a week for four months, starting in January, to create a shared resource that better conceptualises the various research data storage infrastructures available throughout the university. As a modular framework, people working in research support can thereby provide more comprehensive and consistent advice to researchers. The invitation remains open to all. 

The Open Agenda portion of the Forum also served as an opportunity for different expertise centers around the university to introduce themselves to one another, discuss recent national and international trends in digital scholarship, and share news on research infrastructure updates happening at different faculties and institutes. The Open Agenda is sent out as a text document to all Forum participants a week before the meeting so that people might have adequate time to reflect on what to share at the gathering. 

Rethinking Research Software

In the Forum’s special session, Jonathan de Bruin presented “The Role and Future of Proprietary Software at an Open Science University,” which offers a unique approach to developing open source support within a knowledge organisation. Rather than place the onus on open source software itself, De Bruin shows that applying a reflective inspection of our current proprietary software ecosystem better reveals the needs of researchers and the organisation toward more incisive open source software application. In his position at Information and Technology at the Bestuursgebouw and expert role in the Open Science Office, De Bruin moves between overarching university values (e.g., openness) to literacy in particular instances of software.

Building from Gruenpeter et al.’s recently established definition of Research Software, De Bruin provides a useful framing for the discussion: deconstruct software into categories rather than attempt to take on the landscape as a whole. The variety and applications of software at a research institution require their own distinct considerations to evaluate their usefulness in research. De Bruin shows that if we can build more clarity in our evaluation processes, we can determine which forms of proprietary research software are crucial to the research process as well as create more careful roadmaps for free and open source transitions, in line with Utrecht University’s Open Science ambitions.

By exploring a number of evaluation methodologies, including research software citation and qualitative study, De Bruin discussed possibilities in anticipating trends in software usage in order to prepare for open source transitions. As a particular software program becomes less commonly used at the institution, De Bruin indicates, those working to develop the organisation’s digital competencies can work toward an open source transition. By loosening dependencies on costly proprietary software, investment can be made in more actionable FOSS (Free and Open Source) alternatives and, for example, in strengthening software capacity through additional data and software engineers. 

In order to develop a clear understanding of our proprietary research software ecosystem and surface opportunities for open source, De Bruin identifies two organisational needs: (1) “clear, fair, and future-proof criteria for introducing new proprietary research software;” and (2) “clear criteria to phase out proprietary research software.” The Forum then moved to discuss these needs at some length, arriving at questions necessary for creating such criteria. 

Looking Ahead

When might new proprietary research software licenses be added to the university’s offerings? And under what conditions would a proprietary research software license not be renewed? Forum participants identified several potential criteria and points for intervention. 

Particular organisational criteria with regard to software were noted through the value of digital sovereignty. As literacy on data usage and implications increases across research organisations, there are clear needs for research data to remain within university infrastructure. If proprietary software creates a dependency or barrier to access, the work of researchers and their ability to share and build upon that work is inhibited. Elements of software that could help maintain digital sovereignty include local hosting and interoperability, especially regarding data and formatting.

Additional evaluation criteria included ethics considerations, license costs, and whether FOSS alternatives could be identified. People also wondered if collaboration across institutions, for example on a national level, with regard to license usage, could ease resource burdens. Furthermore, does the proprietary research software in question have scalability considerations for an institution? Is there adequate software support to empower the use of the software throughout the university?

The conversation moved from evaluation criteria to evaluation location. Forum participants wondered where those working to engender digital competencies at Utrecht University might gather evidence or insight into research software needs and usage. With our institutional focus on team science and breaking down distinctions between research and support staff, Forum participants agreed that this was an issue that required close collaboration between all members of the university’s collective. Those responsible for maintaining software and their licenses should work closely with those who utilise such software in service of their scientific endeavours. Furthering the points made in De Bruin’s presentation, these relationships would allow software instances to be regarded on their own terms rather than conflated together. This type of intervention further requires reflection on the university’s implementation of Recognition & Reward, as well as its educational offerings – the university must consider which software trainings it provides to the community and how it valorises contributions to a more open scientific infrastructure. 

For More

The UDCC Forum is a monthly gathering of Utrecht University personnel working to develop digital competencies throughout the university. All are welcome. Contact the UDCC support team or visit uu.nl/dcc for information on forthcoming events.