This paper examines the role, functions and value of the “iSchool” as an agent of change in the data informatics and data curation arena. A brief background to the iSchool movement is given followed by a brief review of the data decade, which highlights key data trends from the iSchool perspective: open data and open science, big data and disciplinary data diversity. The growing emphasis on the shortage of data talent is noted and a family of data science roles identified. The paper moves on to describe three primary functions of iSchools: education, research intelligence and professional practice, which form the foundations of a new Capability Ramp Model. The model is illustrated by mini-case studies from the School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh: the immersive (laboratory-based) component of two new Research Data Management and Research Data Infrastructures graduate courses, a new practice partnership with the University Library System centred on RDM, and the mapping of disciplinary data practice using the Community Capability Model Profile Tool. The paper closes with a look to the future and, based on the assertion that data is mission-critical for iSchools, some steps are proposed for the next data decade: moving data education programs into the mainstream core curriculum, adopting a translational data science perspective and strengthening engagement with the Research Data Alliance.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report on an information gathering study on users’ research data-related challenges and proposals for library research data services (RDS). This study probes how early career researchers visually conceptualize the research process in their disciplines, their self-reported research data challenges, and their recommendations for library RDS. Design/methodology/approach – Two focus group sessions were undertaken with a total of eight early career researchers. Adopting the visual narrative inquiry method, the participants were asked to sketch the general research process in their domain. The individuals’ illustrations of the research process were then used as the basis for reflecting on their data-related needs and potential RDS that would assist them during the research process. Findings – Participants presented a research process that was more personal and, in most cases, more imperfect than the research lifecycle models that academic libraries are increasingly using for RDS development and communication. The authors present their data-related challenges, which included data access barriers, low knowledge of best practices for research data management, the need for a deeper understanding of post-publication impact, and inconsistent awareness of existing library and institution RDS. The authors outline RDS recommendations that participants proposed, which included a web-based tools, customized training sessions, and “distilled” guides to research data best practices. Practical implications – The study flagged users’ gaps in understandings of existing library and institutional RDS, suggesting that there may be an opportunity to engage users in the design of communications plans for services. The findings from this user study will inform the development of RDS at the institution. Originality/value – This paper puts forth a methodological approach that academic libraries can adapt for understanding users’ needs and user-generated design solutions.

No abstract

This paper reports on the design, delivery and assessment of a model for internal library education around research data management (RDM). Conducted at the University of Pittsburgh Library System (ULS), the exercise and resultant instructional session employed an active learning approach, in which a group of librarians and archivists explored data issues and conventions in a discipline of their own selection and presented their findings to an audience of library colleagues. In this paper, we put forth an adaptable active learning model for internal RDM education and offer guidance for its implementation by peer libraries that are similarly building internal capacity for the design and delivery of RDM services that are responsive to disciplinary needs.

We often hear strategic planning described as boring, exclusive, and sometimes even out of our control. Such sentiments keep the process and outcomes of planning at a distance from many library staff. But with so much change in libraries happening so quickly, we feel it is crucial that all library staff understand the drivers of change, help shape organizational decisions, and feel ownership of what is put into operation.This article describes a redesigned inclusive planning process put into place at the University Library System (ULS) of the University of Pittsburgh, a state-related university in Pennsylvania. While we write from the perspective of a large, research library with a staff of 200, we believe that our experience with the principles and practices of participatory planning can apply in many library sizes and contexts.Our new process is participatory, inclusive, and transparent; it engages the entire organization with planning results; it uses a lifecycle model with distinct stages over the planning year; and it features a mix of continuing and new participants. In the words of one participant, "there's a process that moves from highlighting lots of individual thoughts to discovering collective concerns." These collective concerns help to create strategic vision for new connections inside and outside the library. Core valuesAn inclusive planning process asks more Aaron L. Brenner, Robin Kear, and Eve Wider Reinvigorating strategic planningAn inclusive, collaborative process of people across an organization, and redesigning planning is a form of organizational change. Like many such changes, it can be met with suspicion, resistance, and disengagement. Asking an organization to go through a new set of actions without an understanding of the values and motivations is a recipe for miscommunication. For this reason, it is paramount to have an articulated set of values associated with an inclusive planning process.When we began a redesign of our planning process in 2011, we did not start with that articulated set of values. To be sure, the new process contained implicit values, but they were not communicated separately from the mechanisms of the process. Over the course of several iterations of the planning cycle, we began to voice a set of core values whenever we would communicate the planning process to participants and the larger organization. Identifying and communicating these core values has been important, giving a foundation to specific yearly planning activities and giving participants trust in the process and an understanding of the motivations that underlie specific planning activities.