Researcher-Library Collaborations: Data Repositories as a Service for Researchers

Gordon, Andrew S.; Millman, David; Steiger, Lisa; Adolph, Karen E.; Gilmore, Rick O.

doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1238

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16 Similarly, Andrew S. Gordon et al have attributed the success of their video data repository to intentional collaboration and information sharing among librarians, information scientists, and disciplinary researchers. 17 Ann Green and Myron Gutmann have argued that reciprocal partnerships formed around academic support roles help to make both interdisciplinary and domain-specific expertise available throughout the data lifecycle. 18 Roger and Halas previously reported similar findings, noting that collaboration with libraries for training and workshops not only strengthened research communities across disciplines, but helped to foster communities of practice between researchers and library support services.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualifying for Services: Investigating the Unmet Needs of Qualitative Researchers

Pearce¹,

He²,

Peterson³

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the needs of qualitative researchers and the ways in which libraries may address some of those needs. Using qualitative interview methods, we conducted 10 semi-structured interviews with individuals from two stakeholder groups: researchers (faculty and doctoral students) and librarians. Among the variety of needs that emerged, ranging from methods training to identifying sources of funding, we discuss two implications for library practice in detail: (1) the need for depth in library resources on qualitative methodology, and (2) potential ways for the library to support communities of practice around qualitative research tools and methods.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualifying for Services: Investigating the Unmet Needs of Qualitative Researchers

Pearce¹,

He²,

Peterson³

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This lack of openness and transparency has made independent analyses and replication difficult, if not, impossible. For this reason, comparative researchers should consider participating in Databrary [ 188 ], a federally-funded, online data repository that allows investigators to store and share raw data, including videos, of their research. The goal is to make science more open and data more widely available.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s Special about Human Imitation? A Comparison with Enculturated Apes

Subiaul

2016

Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What, if anything, is special about human imitation? An evaluation of enculturated apes’ imitation skills, a “best case scenario” of non-human apes’ imitation performance, reveals important similarities and differences between this special population of apes and human children. Candidates for shared imitation mechanisms include the ability to imitate various familiar transitive responses and object–object actions that involve familiar tools. Candidates for uniquely derived imitation mechanisms include: imitating novel transitive actions and novel tool-using responses as well as imitating opaque or intransitive gestures, regardless of familiarity. While the evidence demonstrates that enculturated apes outperform non-enculturated apes and perform more like human children, all apes, regardless of rearing history, generally excel at imitating familiar, over-rehearsed responses and are poor, relative to human children, at imitating novel, opaque or intransitive responses. Given the similarities between the sensory and motor systems of preschool age human children and non-human apes, it is unlikely that differences in sensory input and/or motor-output alone explain the observed discontinuities in imitation performance. The special rearing history of enculturated apes—including imitation-specific training—further diminishes arguments suggesting that differences are experience-dependent. Here, it is argued that such differences are best explained by distinct, specialized mechanisms that have evolved for copying rules and responses in particular content domains. Uniquely derived social and imitation learning mechanisms may represent adaptations for learning novel communicative gestures and complex tool-use. Given our species’ dependence on both language and tools, mechanisms that accelerated learning in these domains are likely to have faced intense selective pressures, starting with the earliest of human ancestors.

show abstract

“…The 75 requirement items that stem from this work provide a good insight about the requirements that such a repository should support, as well as a nice input to consider for RD repository-related studies, such as our own. Finally, Gordon et al (2015), with their Databrary (IR) solution, to a similar effect, present its development as a coordinated effort between researchers and data repository developers.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Requirements and Recommendations for University Research Data Repository: A Case Study

Limani¹,

Hajra²,

Ferati³

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on E-Society (ES 2020)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The changing research culture poses new requirements on research communities across disciplines. The availability of different research outputs requires appropriate infrastructure in order to publish and recognize them as research contributions. Institutional repositories (IR) provide such support for research outputs generated as part of the research. In this work, we conduct a survey to assess the research data management activities and services for an IR at a university setting. The survey results show an increasing presence of research data (RD) as well as a need for an IR component to support it for the participating communities. The survey reveals that common practices among researchers are to save data into spreadsheets, text documents, and relational databases, which they manage personally without any institutional support. Most of them store this data on a personal computer or portable storage drives. Despite these storing practices, which are not optimal for sharing, most participants have a need of sharing their data, and they do it mostly using email attachments. The survey also reveals features that repositories should provide, mostly RD creation-and dissemination-related activities, but also covering those that relate to backup and access-granting.

show abstract

Researcher-Library Collaborations: Data Repositories as a Service for Researchers

Cited by 17 publications

References 16 publications

Qualifying for Services: Investigating the Unmet Needs of Qualitative Researchers

Qualifying for Services: Investigating the Unmet Needs of Qualitative Researchers

What’s Special about Human Imitation? A Comparison with Enculturated Apes

Requirements and Recommendations for University Research Data Repository: A Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About