"Yeah, I Guess That's Data": Data Practices and Conceptions among Humanities Faculty

Thoegersen, Jennifer L.

doi:10.1353/pla.2018.0030

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This last indicator is consistent with findings reported in the literature relating to what is/is not considered data by researchers affecting their engagement with RDM practices (Di Cresce and King, 2017;Kurata et al, 2017;Thoegersen, 2018;Voß and Hamrin, 2018).…”

Section: Contextsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…I also learned how I can store my research data, which is very important.As Vilar and Zabukovec (2018: 26) aptly point out, RDM is an integral part ‘of everyday research work and of researchers’ work habits, not so much a separate formalized task in the research process’, which means that engaging with RDM should begin at the start of a research project and only end when a project is finished. Hence, this broadened understanding of data is crucial in getting candidates engaged with RDM, as what constitutes data affects their recognition of the ‘applicability of’ RDM concepts and practices (Thoegersen, 2018: 492). In this way, the earlier candidates recognise that they have data, the earlier they will start engaging with RDM practices, which speaks to the RDM initiative’s common goal.…”

Section: Evaluation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An initial evaluation of research data management online training at the University of New South Wales

Chew

Wong

et al. 2021

IFLA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to low research data management engagement at the University of New South Wales, Australia, an introductory research data management online training was developed and rolled out to all newly enrolled Higher Degree Research candidates. This article outlines the development process of the research data management online training and provides an initial evaluation of the training from the perspectives of the candidates and the university. As such, this article joins up with existing literature on research data management training to assist institutions and research data management stakeholders with the development of research data management training to help researchers and research students enact research data management best practices. Overall, the majority of the candidates ( n = 643) were satisfied with the quality of the training and found it helpful. The benefits the training brought to the university are mapped out by linking institutional research data management problems, the research data management online training’s design and findings into a coherent narrative.

show abstract

Section: Contextsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Evaluation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

An initial evaluation of research data management online training at the University of New South Wales

Chew

Wong

et al. 2021

IFLA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding other aspects of data management, our results differ from previous studies (Akers and Doty, 2013; Thoegersen, 2018) as far as the willingness to share research data with colleagues is concerned: we found collaboration to be extremely important for our interviewees, both in the form of informal sharing and of teamwork. A possible explanation might be found in the influence of DH projects, which are intrinsically more collaborative as they “require human and material resources spanning disciplinary and institutional boundaries” (Senseney et al ., 2019).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Out of 172 respondents, 54% selected “data”, while 46% preferred “research materials” (Hofelich Mohr et al ., 2015a, p. 52). A few years later, Thoegersen reached a similar conclusion while conducting a qualitative study on data management practices of humanities faculty (2018, p. 491). Most of the nine researchers who agreed to participate, all coming from the fields of history, English, languages and philosophy, stated “with varying levels of confidence, that they would consider most of the research materials discussed to be data” (Thoegersen, 2018, p. 498).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 72%

What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities

Gualandi

Pareschi

Peroni

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis article describes the interviews the authors conducted in late 2021 with 19 researchers at the Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies at the University of Bologna. The main purpose was to shed light on the definition of the word “data” in the humanities domain, as far as FAIR data management practices are concerned, and on what researchers think of the term.Design/methodology/approachThe authors invited one researcher for each of the official disciplinary areas represented within the department and all 19 accepted to participate in the study. Participants were then divided into five main research areas: philology and literary criticism, language and linguistics, history of art, computer science and archival studies. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach.FindingsA list of 13 research data types has been compiled thanks to the information collected from participants. The term “data” does not emerge as especially problematic, although a good deal of confusion remains. Looking at current research management practices, methodologies and teamwork appear more central than previously reported.Originality/valueOur findings confirm that “data” within the FAIR framework should include all types of inputs and outputs humanities research work with, including publications. Also, the participants of this study appear ready for a discussion around making their research data FAIR: they do not find the terminology particularly problematic, while they rely on precise and recognised methodologies, as well as on sharing and collaboration with colleagues.

show abstract

“…For instance, consider the prevalence of the peer‐reviewed research journal article as a unit of scholarship across all disciplines. In contrast, what counts as research data depends upon the field, and data sharing attitudes and practices vary by discipline and research role (Kim, 2019; Johnson et al, 2016; Tenopir et al, 2011; Thoegersen, 2018). Even in cases where funders, institutions, journals, and community norms require that researchers make their data available, the data sharing process itself is neither standardized nor seamless.…”

Section: Infrastructure Characteristics Of Research Data Repositoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Research Data Repositories as Infrastructures

Boyd

2021

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study discusses the properties of research data repositories and explores metadata about 2,646 entries in the Registry of Research Data Repositories (re3data.org) to identify the characteristics attributed to infrastructures they exhibit. The results reveal how research data repositories function as information infrastructure for scientific community members and contribute to the small body of literature that examines data repositories through a sociotechnical lens.

show abstract

"Yeah, I Guess That's Data": Data Practices and Conceptions among Humanities Faculty

Cited by 22 publications

References 4 publications

An initial evaluation of research data management online training at the University of New South Wales

An initial evaluation of research data management online training at the University of New South Wales

What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities

Understanding Research Data Repositories as Infrastructures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About