Variability in academic research data management practices

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how knowledge of local research data management (RDM) practices critically informs the progressive development of research data services (RDS) after basic services have already been established. Design/methodology/approach – An online survey was distributed via e-mail to all university faculty in the fall of 2013, and was left open for just over one month. The authors sent two reminder e-mails before closing the survey. Survey data were downloaded from Qualtrics survey software and analyzed in R. Findings – In this paper, the authors reviewed a subset of survey findings that included data types, volume, and storage locations, RDM roles and responsibilities, and metadata practices. The authors found that Oregon State University (OSU) researchers are generating a wide variety of data types, and that practices vary between colleges. The authors discovered that faculty are not utilizing campus-wide storage infrastructure, and are maintaining their own storage servers in surprising numbers. Faculty-level research assistants perform the majority of data-related tasks at OSU, with the exception of data sharing, which is primarily handled by the professorial ranks. The authors found that many faculty on campus are creating metadata, but that there is a need to provide support in how to discover and create standardized metadata. Originality/value – This paper presents a novel example of how to efficiently move from establishing basic RDM services to providing more focussed services that meet specific local needs. It provides an approach for others to follow when tackling the difficult question of, “What next?” with regard to providing academic RDS.

An Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods Approach to Understanding Researchers’ Data Management Practices at UVM: Integrated Findings to Develop Research Data Services

“…Evidence from both the qualitative and quantitative strands confirm a general lack of metadata creation to describe the primary data, very much in line with findings from other published research (Akers and Doty 2013;Diekema, Wesolek, and Walters 2014;Qin and D'Ignazio 2010;Scaramozzino, Ramírez, and McGaughey 2012;Steinhart et al 2012;Tenopir et al 2011;Whitmire, Boock, and Sutton 2015). While approximately half of the data management plans mentioned metadata, only one-quarter of those directly referenced a known standard, such as Darwin Core (DC) or Ecological Metadata Language (EML).…”

“…Combining the results from both the qualitative and the quantitative phases provide a detailed understanding of researcher behaviors at UVM, most notably that there is no 'typical' researcher. Because quantitative and qualitative research methods are "not inherently linked to any particular inquiry paradigm" (Greene, Caracelli, and Graham 1989, 256), researchers collect a variety of data sources and demonstrate a variety of behaviors in managing it, and this diversity has been documented in similar research studies (Weller and Monroe-Gulick 2014;Whitmire, Boock, and Sutton 2015). For the purposes of this study, it is worthwhile to focus on three RDM behaviors that are central to federal data sharing mandates, a prime driver for RDS: the creation and use of metadata; data sharing; and longterm data preservation.…”

“…The volume of data being created by researchers for a single project is typically quite small, with the majority of projects averaging less than 100 gigabytes; only a small subset of researchers routinely handle more than 1 terabyte of data. A particular outcome of this 'small data' research is an over-reliance on computer, laptop, or external hard drives both for short-and long-term storage solutions, a concern noted elsewhere in the literature (Pinfield, Cox, and Smith 2014;Whitmire, Boock, and Sutton 2015). The cost of data storage, for any length of time, appears to be a driving factor when considering data storage options.…”

“…A top challenge reported in Fearon et al's 2013 multi-institutional study showed faculty non-engagement in data management activities was due to a lack of awareness of library RDS. Similarly, Whitmire, Boock, and Sutton (2015) noted that one of the biggest challenges at Oregon State University has been a lack of visibility on campus of library -provided research data services, such as reviewing data management plans. In a study at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, Scaramozzino, Ramírez, and McGaughey (2012) found that faculty were interested in RDS but the library was not perceived as the resource to provide such services.…”

“…The issue of unfamiliarity with metadata generally or metadata schema specifically has provided opportunity for outreach and engagement for some institutions (Whitmire, Boock, and Sutton 2015), yet it's notable that a study at Cornell University found that nearly two-thirds of survey respondents would not use a metadata service, regardless of cost (Steinhart et al 2012). Given personnel constraints within the UVM Libraries, the low levels of interest demonstrated in the survey, and a lack of RDS at even the most basic level, this would not be a productive area for UVM to address in the near-term.…”