Institutional measures to encourage and
facilitate effective data management and
sharing. A matter of cash, careers or cultural
change?
7th DCC/RIN Research Data Management Forum
University of Warwick, 3rd November 2011
Miggie Pickton
Research Support Librarian
Library and Learning Services
Outline
• Background and context
• Understanding data management practices at
Northampton – DAF project
• From project to policy
• Positive outcomes
• Where next at Northampton?
• So is it a matter of cash, careers or cultural
change?
Background – the university
• About The University of Northampton:
– Achieved university status and research degree
awarding powers in 2005
– Ambitious plans to develop research capacity
• 200+ research students, ??? research active staff –
numbers are rising
• Increased focus on supporting the research community
• Like everyone else... thinking about satisfying funders,
increasing research impact, developing research
environment, the REF...
Background - the KeepIt project
• The JISC-funded KeepIt project aimed to bring together existing
preservation tools and services with appropriate training and
advice to enable repository managers to formulate practical and
achievable preservation plans
• Led by a preservation expert – Steve Hitchcock
• Featured four exemplar repositories:
– eCrystals (science data)
– EdShare (educational resources)
– UAL Research Online (arts)
– NECTAR (research)
• A further 12 repository managers attended the KeepIt training
course
KeepIt course – tools
• Data Asset Framework (DAF) - identify, locate, describe
and assess research data assets
• Assessing Digital Institutional Assets self assessment
toolkit (AIDA)
• Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS) – benefits and costs
of a repository
• LIFE3 – predictive costing tool for digital content
• Eprints preservation toolkit
• DROID & JHOVE – file format identification and characterisation
• PREMIS - data dictionary for preservation metadata
• Plato - preservation planning tool from PLANETS
• Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk
Assessment (DRAMBORA) – repository risk
assessment and reporting
Data Asset Framework
• Could see an immediate benefit in several tools, but particularly
the Data Asset Framework from the Digital Curation Centre
• What is DAF?
“The Data Asset Framework is a set of methods to:
– find out what data assets are being created and held within
institutions;
– explore how those data are stored, managed, shared and
reused;
– identify any risks e.g. misuse, data loss or irretrievability;
– learn about researchers’ attitudes towards data creation and
sharing;
– suggest ways to improve ongoing data management.”
(Digital Curation Centre, 2009, p.3)
Why conduct a DAF project?
• Little was known centrally about university researchers’
data storage requirements, or the research workflow that
incorporates the creation and management of data
• No university wide data storage policy or procedure existed
• Aware that research funders were beginning to require data
as well as published research outputs to be made openly
available
• In NECTAR (our institutional repository), we had available
the infrastructure to store and preserve digital data
• Previous studies had noted that the process of undertaking
DAF had been valuable in itself, even if the resulting
inventory of data was only partial
DAF at Northampton
• Project team:
– two project researchers (graduate interns) plus a Project
Board comprising staff with expertise in repositories, records
management and collection development
• Ran from May to June 2010 (eight weeks)
• Data collection, three stages:
– Initial interviews with research leaders in each School; online
survey of researchers; one-to-one interviews with researchers
• Topics covered:
– Types, sizes and formats of research data; data ownership;
storage; security; sharing and access (short and long term);
funders’ requirements
DAF at Northampton – some findings
• Three generic types of researcher (each with characteristic
needs and behaviours) - research student; independent
researcher; group researcher/collaborator
• Data storage needs, behaviours and vulnerabilities varied
through the research lifecycle
• Consensus in use of some file types (e.g. .doc, .xls, .jpeg)
but not others (e.g. for audio, video, databases)
• Very few Northampton researchers had applied for funding
from an organisation that mandated open access to
research data
• Just over a half of respondents expressed interest in a
university repository for data (either open or closed access)
DAF at Northampton - concerns
Lots of good practice, especially in data security, but in some
cases:
• Uncertainty over ownership of research data
• Data still collected in out-dated formats
• Data management practices guided by intuition rather than
informed by good practice
• Data neglected once a project is complete
• Researchers often ill-informed (or misinformed) of the
services available to them
DAF at Northampton - recommendations
• A Research Data Policy to be drafted and approved by the
University Research Committee (URC)
• University to clarify its position on the ownership of
research data
• Graduate School, Records Manager and Library staff to
develop and promote training sessions and guides to RDM
• Information Services to further develop and disseminate
expertise in preservation planning to support researchers
wishing to store and access their data over the medium to
long term
• Project findings to be disseminated to Schools and Research
Centres, together with advice and guidance in line with the
new policy
(Full results and recommendations are described in the
project report – see Alexogiannopoulos et al., 2010)
From project to policy
• October 2010 – DAF project report presented to URC
• November 2010 - URC Research Data Working Group
convened to discuss:
– Scope of policy
– Fit with research lifecycle
– Procedure to support policy
– Relationship with other university policies and practices
(e.g. research ethics; academic misconduct)
• November-December 2010 – policies from other institutions
reviewed
From project to policy
• January 2011 – discussions with the DCC re ‘generic’
version of DMP Online
• January 2010 – first RDM proposal presented to URC:
– RCUK recommendations to be followed (RCUK, 2009)
– Principal Investigator to complete a data management
plan at the start of every project (DMP Online
recommended for this purpose)
– A central dedicated storage facility for research data to
be provided
– Support and training to be offered to researchers
• Members of URC expressed concern
From project to policy
• URC concerns:
– Duplication of effort - “we have to do this already ” ...
for funders, professional bodies, etc.
– Relevance or applicability to different disciplines
– Reluctance to set disposal date (or even review date) –
“I’d be very upset if my data were deleted” ...after I had
left
– Aversion to procedures being mandatory
– Expense – who will pay for it?
• So back to the drawing board...
From project to policy
Revised proposal eventually approved by URC in June 2011:
• Emphasis on encouragement rather than mandate
• No longer expected for every research project
• Simplified internal procedures
• Default five year review period
• Additional help offered for identifying external data archives
Positive outcomes
• The DAF project gave us the chance to have much more
meaningful and in-depth discussions with individual
researchers – allowing us to learn more of their needs and
to promote our services (including NECTAR)
• Awareness of the full implications of good research data
management has increased
• Data management training is now a standard element of
research student induction
• Greater recognition among researchers of the expertise
held by support staff in records and data management
• Good research data management should support the
University Records Manager’s role in dealing with FOI and
EIR requests (JISC, 2010)
Less positively...
• Approval of the policy by URC has not yet resulted in
obvious behavioural change
• Major (ongoing) structural changes across the university
support services have hindered progress since June
• Without clear incentives (or sanctions), researchers lack
motivation to conform to policy
Where next?
We need to:
How?
1. Disseminate the new policy
to all Schools and Divisions
1. Through multiple
communication channels e.g.
School Research Forums;
university website; one-toones
2. Develop RDM training
programme – paying
particular attention to the
needs of different disciplines
3.
Fulfil our commitment to
provide a dedicated
research data storage
facility
2. Involve Records Manager,
library staff and researchers
in development of training
sessions and guidelines
3. Seek authorisation from new
budget holder; take advice
on best way of implementing
hardware and software
Where next?
We need to:
4. Promote the importance
and value of effective data
management and sharing
5. Seek ways to support the
embedding of good data
management practice in
research workflows
How?
4. Gain support from opinion
leaders; focus on key
messages; emphasise
benefits to research
groups and individuals.
Raise awareness among
both academic and
support staff.
5. Take advice from DCC and
other experts
To conclude
• A matter of cash, careers or cultural change?
– Cash (i.e. funding) – only if the prospective funder
clearly expects good RDM practice or data sharing
(otherwise, why bother?)
– Careers – there must be a demonstrable link between
good RDM and career progression (e.g. data citation)
– Cultural change – essential.
• All three together? Effective data management and
sharing will result from the application of appropriate
carrots and sticks by funders and employers, combined
with clear demonstration of career benefits and recognition
of the value of good data management practice among the
scholarly community.
References
•
Alexogiannopoulos, E., McKenney, S. and Pickton, M. (2010) Research
Data Management Project: a DAF investigation of research data
management practices at The University of Northampton. Northampton:
University of Northampton. Available from:
http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/2736/ [Accessed 27.10.2011].
•
Digital Curation Centre (2009) Data Asset Framework: Implementation
guide. Available from: http://www.dataaudit.eu/docs/DAF_Implementation_Guide.pdf [Accessed 27.10.2011].
•
JISC (2010) Freedom of Information and research data: Questions and
answers. Available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/programmerelated/2010/foiresearchdat
a.aspx [Accessed 27.10.2011].
•
Research Councils UK (2009) RCUK Policy and code of conduct on the
governance of good research conduct: Integrity, clarity and good
management. Available from:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/reviews/grc/grcpoldraft.pdf [Accessed
27.10.2011].
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the JISC for funding the KeepIt
project; to the Graduate Boost programme for
supplying the two DAF project researchers, Sam
McKenney and Edward Alexogiannopoulos; and
to Sarah Jones and Martin Donnelly of the
Digital Curation Centre for their help and
support with the DAF and DMP Online tools.