Data sharing, small science and institutional repositories

Abstract

Results are presented from the Data Curation Profiles project research, on who is willing to share what data with whom and when. Emerging from scientists' discussions on sharing are several dimensions suggestive of the variation in both what it means 'to share' and how these processes are carried out. This research indicates that data curation services will need to accommodate a wide range of subdisciplinary data characteristics and sharing practices. As part of a larger set of strategies emerging across academic institutions, institutional repositories (IRs) will contribute to the stewardship and mobilization of scientific research data for e-Research and learning. There will be particular types of data that can be managed well in an IR context when characteristics and practices are well understood. Findings from this study elucidate scientists' views on 'sharable' forms of data-the particular representation that they view as most valued for reuse by others within their own research areas-and the anticipated duration for such reuse. Reported sharing incidents that provide insights into barriers to sharing and related concerns on data misuse are included.

Assessing Research Data Management Practices of Faculty at Carnegie Mellon University

“…McLure et al 2014, Doty 2012, Akers & Doty 2013. Cragin et al (2010) also found that researcher attitudes towards research data sharing were colored by the amount of time it would take to prepare data for sharing. Anderson et al (2007) report that scientific communities are interested in solving these problems themselves, but lack the tools and resources to do so.…”

“…As much as possible, it will be necessary for administrative units supporting research data services to address the needs of researchers on a case-by-case basis or with a suite of services that caters to researcher needs without presupposing those needs based on research domain. Cragin et al (2010) also note that a broad, one size fits all approach to research data services may sacrifice the nuance required to help researchers most in need.…”

“…Almost without exception, survey and interview research exploring data management and sharing practices in academia exhibit striking homogeneity including: a general lack of data sharing through repositories and journals in favor of sharing via personal communication, researchers rarely creating metadata or other documentation for data, backup and storage practices that are of questionable efficacy and on questionable media, and concerns among researchers about the amount of time required to prepare data for sharing and the potential for misuse of data (Akers & Doty, 2013;Doty, 2012;Editorial, 2011;Parham, Bodnar, & Fuchs 2012;Steinhart, Chen, Arguillas, Dietrich, & Kramer, 2012;Cragin, Palmer, Carlson, & Witt, 2010;Peters & Dryden, 2011). On the other hand, the literature is similarly replete with survey and interview results suggesting that researchers are interested in training and guidance for research data management best practices (Akers & Doty, 2013;Parham et al, 2012;McClure, Level, Cranston, Oehlerts, & Culbertson, 2014, Wright et al, 2013.…”

“…This broad-scale agreement on the problems of research data management and desire for training in best practices do not, unfortunately, obviate the need for the exploration of local research data management practices and needs. Cragin et al (2010) and Whitmire, Boock, & Sutton (in press) both note that there is a dichotomy between the need to provide overarching services in this area and the need to identify, at the domain-level, specific services needed by individual researchers.…”

“…An alternative set of approaches favor in-depth interviews or focus group with researchers such as those conducted through the Data Curation Profiles Toolkit (datacurationprofiles. org; Carlson, 2012;Cragin et al, 2010;Wright et al, 2013;Zilinski & Lorenz, 2012) or through similar methods such as focus groups (McClure et al, 2014) or other interview protocols (e.g. Peters & Dryden, 2011).…”