Data Curation Program Development in U.S. Universities: The Georgia Institute of Technology Example

Abstract

The curation of scientific research data at U.S. universities is a story of enterprising individuals and of incremental progress. A small number of libraries and data centers who see the possibilities of becoming “digital information management centers” are taking entrepreneurial steps to extend beyond their traditional information assets and include managing scientific and scholarly research data. The Georgia Institute of Technology (GT) has had a similar development path toward a data curation program based in its library. This paper will articulate GT’s program development, which the author offers as an experience common in U.S. universities. The main characteristic is a program devoid of top-level mandates and incentives, but rich with independent, “bottom-up” action. The paper will address program antecedents and context, inter-institutional partnerships that advance the library’s curation program, library organizational developments, partnerships with campus research communities, and a proposed model for curation program development. It concludes that despite the clear need for data curation put forth by researchers such as the groups of neuroscientists and bioscientists referenced in this paper, the university experience examined suggests that gathering resources for developing data curation programs at the institutional level is proving to be a quite onerous. However, and in spite of the challenges, some U.S. research universities are beginning to establish perceptible data curation programs.

How can libraries and other academic stakeholders engage in making data open?

“…This has to change. Preparing data management plans and training staff to accomplish them is new and mostly unchartered waters for universities and research institutions but there are some good examples of and reports on how to support these institutions in open data management [18,21,22,27].…”

“…Data diversity, tools and researcher needs should not be measured at the disciplinary level but at the research group level. In the literature review we have come across several recommendations that stress that for advocacy and training purposes interviews, case studies and surveys should be developed to understand researcher requirements and behaviour [3,9,13,22,27]. This must be the basis for developing advocacy/training materials that will motivate researchers, as well as making them understand the obligations to institutions, funders and the public.…”

“…The University of Southampton is one of many examples of how initiatives for data curation projects do not stop with collaboration inside the university departments. Many times necessary skills are only available through partnering with outside institutions or organizations [19,27].…”

“…The typical United States data curation program is "devoid of top-level mandates and incentives, but rich with independent 'bottom-up' action". A structure like this is based on enterprising individuals and makes for a slow speed of development [27].…”

“…Engaging with a few research communities as a start up pilot is a way to gain acceptance, formalization and getting program commitments from administrative levels. A successful project might well be a way of convincing university administrators of the benefits of a university wide curation policy and mandate [27].…”