Improving the usefulness of research data with better paradata

Abstract

Considerable investments have been made in Europe and worldwide for developing research data infrastructures. Instead of a general lack of data about data, it has become apparent that a pivotal factor that drastically constrains data use is the absence of contextual knowledge about how data was created and how it has been curated and used. This applies especially to many branches of social science and humanities research, where data is highly heterogeneous, both by its kind (e.g. being qualitative, quantitative, naturalistic, purposefully created) and origins (e.g. being historical/contemporary, from different contexts and geographical places). The problem is that there may be enough metadata (data about data) but there is too little paradata (data on the processes of its creation, curation and use). The aim of this position paper is to draw attention 1) to the need for a better and more systematic understanding and documentation of the contexts of creation, curation and use of research data to make it useful and usable for researchers and other potential users in the future, and 2) to specific obstacles that make the capturing of this particular type of metadata, known as paradata, especially difficult. Failing to understand what information about the creation, curation and use of research data is needed and how to capture enough of that information risks that the currently collected vast amounts of research data become useless in the future.

Upcycling historical data collections. A paradigm for digital history?

“…, 2016), often suffer from methodological deficiencies and technical hindrances (cf. Huvila, 2022, p. 30) and are “(…) embedded in a local context, which makes it difficult for reusers to understand and trust the data” (Faniel and Zimmerman, 2011, p. 60). Reciprocally, “[t]he same factors that make it hard for scientists to reuse data collected by those from a different community also make it difficult for data producers to share data” (Faniel and Zimmerman, 2011, p. 61).…”

“…Reciprocally, “[t]he same factors that make it hard for scientists to reuse data collected by those from a different community also make it difficult for data producers to share data” (Faniel and Zimmerman, 2011, p. 61). No wonder that “data reuse is not (…) as widespread as it might be imagined (…)” (Huvila, 2022, p. 30). Yet at the same time, “[t]here is almost universal agreement that scientific data should be shared for use beyond the purposes for which they were initially collected” (Faniel and Zimmerman, 2011, p. 59) and within the digital humanities there have been repeated calls to embrace the “data deluge” (e.g.…”

“…Guldi and Armitage, 2014). Moreover, in recent years, researchers have raised “(…) legitimate concerns of the present, often limited consideration of the usefulness, limits and contextuality of the currently available and (re)used research data” (Huvila, 2022, p. 30; see also: Faniel and Zimmerman, 2011; Bevan, 2015; De Freitas, 2017; Smith, 2022).…”

“…Isto Huvila summarises the importance of paradata (and more generally of the study of information creation processes) as follows:Without documentation of how data was captured or created, in what types of conditions, what tools were used, who did what and when, what qualifications and experience the individuals had, and for instance, who made decisions and on what premises it is impossible to know the extents of the data, what was left out and why, and in general, how well the data suits for addressing other types of research questions than the original ones, and what needs to be taken into account when using it. (Huvila, 2022, p. 31). …”

Bridging Digital Approaches and Legacy in Archaeology

“…Furthermore, the results of the on-going ERCfunded project CAPTURE indicated that the lack of interoperability of archaeological data and information may be the outcome of techno-politics. To that end, the paradata, namely the creation method of digital research outputs, are receiving further attention [36,37].…”