Big Deal: Should Universities Outsource More Core Research Infrastructure? -
Open accessAbstract
Research universities have developed in symbiosis with a robust set of commercial providers that serve their needs. From food service providers to run dining halls to private equity firms to manage parts of the endowment, outsourcing has allowed universities to remain more focused on their core educational and research functions. But universities have also at times elected to outsource academic infrastructure. Commercial firms have developed a major role in several significant university functions, including scientific publishing, library management systems, and course management systems. And in all three cases, the commercial priorities of vendors have at times left academia frustrated. While outsourcing is not uniformly good or bad, services with a principally academic market seem to be especially susceptible to monopoly or oligopoly dynamics among commercial providers. Today, an entirely new class of tools and platforms is developing that stands to revolutionize scientific research in academia. These research workflow tools will variously improve transparency, reproducibility, accountability, and efficiency of the scientific research process, an enormous boon to scientists themselves and their universities that have so much invested in academic science. But in assessing and adopting these valuable new research workflow tools, research universities once again face key questions about whether and under what circumstances to outsource core scholarly infrastructure with a principally academic market. Scholars and in particular the laboratory scientists who work as teams can dramatically increase their productivity and effectiveness with tools that support them systematically from research design and funding through data collection and analysis to assessment and showcasing, as can be seen in this very rough schematic of their overall workflow: It isn't hard for a scientist to imagine moving seamlessly across the various steps of the research lifecycle: from programing a scientific instrument, to analyzing the dataset it created, to collaborating on the draft article derived from the analysis, to working through peer reviewer comments, to examining the impact of the research once published, to including those statistics in the grant application for the next phase of research, to keeping up with the newest scholarship in the field. Traditionally, each of these steps along the workflow utilizes different tools and systems. In part, this is because the overall workflow is supported by, or engages with, a variety of different functions, including grant writers, research funders, notebook providers, instrument providers, analysis and writing software, publishers, and libraries. Individual digital tools and services can bring great improvements to the researcher experience at almost every point along the workflow. Bringing greater seamlessness across the full research lifecycle through integrations across these discrete steps is a path towards yet greater improvement.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The convergence on general-purpose tools over specialized research software represents not preference but systemic exclusion from purpose-built infrastructure.
“The convergence on general-purpose tools over specialized research software represents not preference but systemic exclusion from purpose-built infrastructure [2], extending HCI critiques of academic dependence on proprietary technologies prioritizing profit over accessibility [20, 62, 77].”
From "I Don't Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers (2026) · cites this paper as [62]
The Research workflow section describes different tools used across stages of research, and Structure describes fragmented university decision-making. Neither reports a convergence on general-purpose tools over specialized software or attributes such use to systemic exclusion rather than preference. Searches for those distinctions found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Khan, O., & Seo, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791242 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- s, R.
- ORCID
- s, Roger
- Publisher
- Ithaka S+R
- Published
- 2018-01-04
- OpenAlex
- W2781810085
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Higher Education Governance and Development
- Keywords
- research infrastructure, outsourcing, university research, academic libraries, research support services
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review