Open data, FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) and research data management (RDM) are three overlapping but distinct concepts, each emphasizing different aspects of handling and sharing research data. They have different strengths in terms of informing and influencing how research data is treated, and there is much scope for enrichment of data if they are applied collectively. This paper explores the boundaries of each concept and where they intersect and overlap. As well as providing greater definitional clarity, this will help researchers to manage and share their data, and those supporting researchers, such as librarians and data stewards, to understand how these concepts can best be used in an advocacy setting. FAIR and open both focus on data sharing, ensuring content is made available in ways that promote access and reuse. Data management by contrast is about the stewardship of data from the point of conception onwards. It makes no assumptions about access, but is essential if data are to be meaningful to others. The concepts of FAIR and open are more noble aspirations and are, this paper argues, a useful way to engage researchers and encourage good data practices from the outset.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between research data management (RDM) and data sharing in the formulation of RDM policies and development of practices in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Design/methodology/approach – Two strands of work were undertaken sequentially: first, content analysis of 37 RDM policies from UK HEIs; and second, two detailed case studies of institutions with different approaches to RDM based on semi-structured interviews with staff involved in the development of RDM policy and services. The data are interpreted using insights from Actor Network Theory. Findings – RDM policy formation and service development has created a complex set of networks within and beyond institutions involving different professional groups with widely varying priorities shaping activities. Data sharing is considered an important activity in the policies and services of HEIs studied, but its prominence can in most cases be attributed to the positions adopted by large research funders. Research limitations/implications – The case studies, as research based on qualitative data, cannot be assumed to be universally applicable but do illustrate a variety of issues and challenges experienced more generally, particularly in the UK. Practical implications – The research may help to inform development of policy and practice in RDM in HEIs and funder organisations. Originality/value – This paper makes an early contribution to the RDM literature on the specific topic of the relationship between RDM policy and services, and openness – a topic which to date has received limited attention.

Research Data Management (RDM) presents an unusual challenge for service providers in Higher Education. There is increased awareness of the need for training in this area but the nature of the discipline-specific practices involved make it difficult to provide training across a multi-disciplinary organisation. Whilst most UK universities now have a research data team of some description, they are often small and rarely have the resources necessary to provide targeted training to the different disciplines and research career stages that they are increasingly expected to support. This practice paper describes the approach taken at the University of Cambridge to address this problem by creating a community of Data Champions. This collaborative initiative, working with researchers to provide training and advocacy for good RDM practice, allows for more discipline-specific training to be given, researchers to be credited for their expertise and creates an opportunity for those interested in RDM to exchange knowledge with others. The ‘community of practice’ model has been used in many sectors, including Higher Education, to facilitate collaboration across organisational units and this initiative will adopt some of the same principles to improve communication across a decentralised institution. The Data Champions initiative at Cambridge was launched in September 2016 and this paper reports on the early months, plans for building the community in the future and the possible risks associated with this approach to providing RDM services.

Research Data Management (RDM) presents an unusual challenge for service providers in Higher Education. There is increased awareness of the need for training in this area but the nature of disciplinespecific practices involved make it difficult to provide training across a multi-disciplinary organisation. Whilst most UK universities now have a research data team of some description, they are often small and rarely have the resources necessary to provide targeted training to the different disciplines and research career stages that they are increasingly expected to support. This practice paper describes the approach taken at the University of Cambridge to address this problem by creating a community of Data Champions. This collaborative initiative, working with researchers to provide training and advocacy for good RDM practice, allows for more discipline-specific training to be given, researchers to be credited for their expertise and an opportunity for those interested in RDM to exchange knowledge with others. The 'community of practice' model has been used in many sectors, including Higher Education, to facilitate collaboration across organisational units and this initiative will adopt some of the same principles to improve communication across a decentralised institution. The Data Champions initiative at Cambridge was launched in September 2016 and this paper reports on the early months, plans for building the community in the future and the possible risks associated with this approach to providing RDM services.

When developing new products, tools or services, one always need to think about the end users to ensure a wide-spread adoption. While this applies equally to services developed at higher education institutions, sometimes these services are driven by policies and not by the needs of end users. This policy-driven approach can prove challenging for building effective community engagement. The initial development of Research Data Management support services at the University of Cambridge was policy-driven and subsequently failed in the first instance to engage the community of researchers for whom these services were created. In this practice paper, we describe the initial approach undertaken at Cambridge when developing RDM services, the results of this approach and lessons learnt. We then provide an overview of alternative, democratic strategies employed and their positive effects on community engagement. We summarise by performing a cost-benefit analysis of the two approaches. This paper might be a useful case study for any institutions aiming to develop central support services for researchers, with conclusions applicable to the wider sector, and extending beyond Research Data Management services.