A Study of Faculty Data Curation Behaviors and Attitudes at a Teaching-Centered University

Scaramozzino, Jeanine; Ramirez, Marisa; McGaughey, Karen

doi:10.5860/crl-255

Cited by 64 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, many survey respondents exhibit questionable data management practices such as poor data backup, inadequate metadata and data documentation, and a lack of overall data management planning for projects. These patterns are not unique to CMU and have been noted many times in similar studies in the US and the UK (Editorial, 2011;Peters & Dryden 2011;Scaramozzino et al, 2012;Steinhart et al, 2012).…”

Section: Survey Resultsmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Many researchers have used institution-wide faculty/researcher surveys to gather information about research data management practices at their institutions (e.g. Akers & Doty, 2013;Beagrie et al, 2009;Henty et al, 2008;Parham et al, 2012;Whitmire et al, in press) while other survey projects have focused on specific sub-groups within the university such as NSF awardees (Steinhart et al, 2012), STEM faculty (D'Ignazio & Qin, 2008, or at a teaching college (Scaramozzino, Ramirez, McGaughey, Ramírez, & McGaughey, 2012). An alternative set of approaches favor in-depth interviews or focus group with researchers such as those conducted through the Data Curation Profiles Toolkit (datacurationprofiles.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others who have applied this mixed model (e.g. Alexogiannopoulos, McKenney, & Pickton, 2010;Beagrie et al, 2009;Scaramozzino et al 2012) also appear to have benefited from its application. That said, the in-depth interview element of this model is time intensive.…”

Section: Study Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing Research Data Management Practices of Faculty at Carnegie Mellon University

Tuyl

Michalek

2015

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION Recent changes to requirements for research data management by federal granting agencies and by other funding institutions have resulted in the emergence of institutional support for these requirements. At CMU, we sought to formalize assessment of research data management practices of researchers at the institution by launching a faculty survey and conducting a number of interviews with researchers. METHODS We submitted a survey on research data management practices to a sample of faculty including questions about data production, documentation, management, and sharing practices. The survey was coupled with in-depth interviews with a subset of faculty. We also make estimates of the amount of research data produced by faculty. RESULTS Survey and interview results suggest moderate level of awareness of the regulatory environment around research data management. Results also present a clear picture of the types and quantities of data being produced at CMU and how these differ among research domains. Researchers identified a number of services that they would find valuable including assistance with data management planning and backup/storage services. We attempt to estimate the amount of data produced and shared by researchers at CMU. DISCUSSION Results suggest that researchers may need and are amenable to assistance with research data management. Our estimates of the amount of data produced and shared have implications for decisions about data storage and preservation. CONCLUSION Our survey and interview results have offered significant guidance for building a suite of services for our institution.

show abstract

Section: Survey Resultsmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing Research Data Management Practices of Faculty at Carnegie Mellon University

Tuyl

Michalek

2015

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, inconsistencies extend further than a definition of terms. Previous studies evidence wide variation in practices surrounding research data: differences in how data are collected, stored, and shared (Bishoff & Johnston, 2015;Kennan & Markauskaite, 2015;Tenopir et al, 2011Tenopir et al, , 2015; among disciplines, institutions, departments, and individuals (Akers & Doty, 2013;Buys & Shaw, 2015;Weller & Monroe-Gulick, 2014); and in researchers' experience, knowledge, and perceptions (Akers & Doty, 2012;Jahnke & Asher, 2012;Scaramozzino, Ramírez, & McGaughey, 2012). When viewed collectively, it is evident that librarians must recognize and address those needs that are relevant to their specific users.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to capture the broad practices, needs, and perceptions of Author Institution life sciences faculty, and mimicking similar efforts at other institutions (Akers & Doty, 2012Scaramozzino et al, 2012;Weller & Monroe-Gulick, 2014), the authors surveyed faculty from the Center for Neural Science, the College of Global Public Health, and the Departments of Nutrition & Food Studies, Biology, and Environmental Studies. The survey included questions relating to funder and publisher mandates, data management (including storage, backup, and sharing), and library services (Appendix A).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Data Management Among Life Sciences Faculty: Implications for Library Service

Johnson¹,

Steeves²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pending peer review and publication. Following the 2013 release of the Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research memorandum, research data management (RDM) has been the target of increased interest and development among both researchers and librarians. Widespread evidence of significant variability in practices and attitudes indicates that librarians should evaluate their specific patron base as they approach service development. The authors issued a survey to estimate actual and perceived research data management needs of NYU's life sciences faculty in order to understand how the library could best contribute to the research lifecycle.

show abstract

Why academics under‐share research data: A social relational theory

Mattern,

Kohlburn,

Moulaison‐Sandy

2024

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their professed enthusiasm for open science, faculty researchers have been documented as not freely sharing their data; instead, if sharing data at all, they take a minimal approach. A robust research agenda in LIS has documented the data under‐sharing practices in which they engage, and the motivations they profess. Using theoretical frameworks from sociology to complement research in LIS, this article examines the broader context in which researchers are situated, theorizing the social relational dynamics in academia that influence faculty decisions and practices relating to data sharing. We advance a theory that suggests that the academy has entered a period of transition, and faculty resistance to data sharing through foot‐dragging is one response to shifting power dynamics. If the theory is borne out empirically, proponents of open access will need to find a way to encourage open academic research practices without undermining the social value of academic researchers.

show abstract

A Study of Faculty Data Curation Behaviors and Attitudes at a Teaching-Centered University

Abstract: Academic libraries need reliable information on researcher data needs, data curation practices, and attitudes to identify and craft appropriate services that support outreach and teaching. This paper describes information gathered from a survey distributed to the College

Cited by 64 publications

References 8 publications

Assessing Research Data Management Practices of Faculty at Carnegie Mellon University

Assessing Research Data Management Practices of Faculty at Carnegie Mellon University

Research Data Management Among Life Sciences Faculty: Implications for Library Service

Why academics under‐share research data: A social relational theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About