What do all our contacts with researchers regarding data, research data management, and IT mean? What do they tell us about what requirements are at the university, the problems and concerns that exist, what people think of IT services, appreciation of data management planning etc.?
As one of the project deliverables I have been pulling together results from the last year from a number of planned and ad-hoc exercises and normal working activity. This includes a University-wide sensitive data holding survey, DMP-Online Data Management Planning piloting, research funding contacts, and ad hoc researcher contacts.
I’m hoping that will combine to provide some insight and guide RDM development.
Before Christmas the Transformations projects were contacted regarding the need to work on identification of benefits. Although very helpfully a structure was provided for this by Jisc I’ve tried to do a similar exercise by applying a combination of a couple of things:
- Cranfield School of Management Benefits Management techniques, and
- Analysis from my previous research which examined the progression through, and links between presupposition, attitude, behaviour and practice.
The link between these I have been working on is the path from objectives for RDM work through to linked action required to achieve this, and the related benefit. The steps in between require an understanding of why things might or might not happen. In other words I’ve been linking objectives, actions required, benefits and measurables, but adding the angle of “why will this happen?” – what is the understanding, and related attitudes that may exist or need to be encouraged, and how will they influence action towards or away from the intended objectives and benefits.
In other words… why? … but why will that happen? … but does a and b also imply or cause c?
A next step …
A number of UK Universities have conducted survey exercises regarding researcher IT requirements, and research data management. Some of these have used a common or similar approach, often using the DCC Digital Asset Framework (DAF) methodology. I want to see how the survey findings compare and contrast and what we can learn from them.
No doubt there are more but a first sweep has including finding the following:
- University of Cambridge/University of Glasgow: Scoping study and implementation plan (A pilot project for supporting research data management”), July 2010 (incremental Project (http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/preservation/incremental/documents/Incremental_Scoping_Report_170910.pdf)
- University of Northampton: Research data management project: a DAF investigation of research data management practices at The University of Northampton, September 2012 (http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/2736/ )
- University of Oxford Research Data Management Survey 2012 (DaMaRO project) (http://blogs.oucs.ox.ac.uk/damaro/2013/01/03/university-of-oxford-research-data-management-survey-2012-the-results/)
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Survey on Research Data Management and Sharing: Working Paper (2012) (http://blogs.lshtm.ac.uk/rdmss/files/2012/10/WP4-WebSurveyV1.pdf)
- University of Nottingham Research Data Management Survey, 2013 (ADMIRe project, https://admire.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2013/02/07/university-of-nottingham-research-data-management-survey-results/ )
- Summary Findings of the Open Exeter Data Asset Framework Survey (University of Exeter, Open Exeter Project, 2102) (https://eric.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/3689/daf_report_public.pdf?sequence=1 )
- Digital Asset Framework (DAF) Survey Analysis, University of Hertfordshire (2012) (http://research-data-toolkit.herts.ac.uk/…/rdtk-data-asset-survey-digest-july )
- University of Southampton: Data management questionnaire results : IDMB Project, 2011 (http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/196243/1/IDMB_Survey_Report.pdf )
Has anyone done a meta-analysis?