The Preservation of Research Data in a Postmodern Culture

Humphrey, Chuck

doi:10.29173/iq601

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The practice of "self-archiving" at many institutional repositories has the potential to pose difficulties for effective long-term sharing and preservation of social science research data. (Humphrey, 2005) In many cases, the depositing mechanisms have been made so user friendly and generic that they are inadequate for the demands of preparing and processing data for secondary use. Producing adequate data documentation demands significant amounts of time and labor that most researchers do not have.…”

Section: Domain-specific Digital Repositoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building partnerships among social science researchers, institution‐based repositories and domain specific data archives

Green

Gutmann

2007

OCLC Systems &Amp; Services: International Digital Library Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -In developing and debating digital repositories, the digital library world has devoted more attention to their missions and roles in supporting access to and stewardship of academic research output than to discussing discipline, or domain, specific digital repositories. This is especially interesting, given that in social science these domain-specific repositories have been in existence for many decades. The goal of this paper is to juxtapose these two kinds of repositories and to suggest ways that they can help build partnerships between themselves and with the research community. Design/methodology/approach -The approach taken in the paper is based on the fundamental idea that all the parties involved share important goals, and that by working together these goals can be advanced successfully. Findings -The key message is that by visualizing the role of repositories explicitly in the life cycle of the social science research enterprise, the ways that the partnerships work will be clear. These workings can be seen as a sequence of reciprocal information flows between parties to the process, triggers that signal that one party or another has a task to perform, and hand-offs of information from one party to another that take place at crucial moments. This approach envisions both cooperation and specialization. Practical implications -If followed, the recommendations offered in the paper will allow those implementing various kinds of repositories to work together with others in new ways, thus both enhancing the amount of information preserved and its value for the community. Originality/value -This is one of the first times that the mutual possibilities of institutional and domain-specific repositories have been brought together.

show abstract

Section: Domain-specific Digital Repositoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building partnerships among social science researchers, institution‐based repositories and domain specific data archives

Green

Gutmann

2007

OCLC Systems &Amp; Services: International Digital Library Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This dearth of work with humanities researchers was also a hallmark of early work on institutional repositories [25]). Even in the science disciplines, a number of researcher concerns have been raised about data sharing: Lyons recognised as early as 2003 that intellectual property concerns are a large barrier to depositing data in a digital library [26]; Corti raised the ethical implications of data sharing (particularly for sensitive data) in 2000 [27]; Humphrey expressed concern about the impact of individualistic research cultures on data sharing in 2005 [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%