Scaling Research Data Management Services Along the Maturity Spectrum: Three Institutional Perspectives

Abstract

Research data services promise to advance many academic libraries’ strategic goals of becoming partners in the research process and integrating library services with modern research workflows. Academic librarians are well positioned to make an impact in this space due to their expertise in managing, curating, and preserving digital information, and a history of engaging with scholarly communications writ large. Some academic libraries have quickly developed infrastructure and support for every activity ranging from data storage and curation to project management and collaboration, while others are just beginning to think about addressing the data needs of their researchers. Regardless of which end of the spectrum they identify with, libraries are still seeking to understand the research landscape and define their role in the process.This article seeks to blend both a general perspective regarding these issues with actual case studies derived from three institutions, University of Cincinnati, Oklahoma State University, and Florida State University, all of which are at different levels of implementation, maturity, and campus involvement.

Planning, implementing and evaluating research data services in academic libraries: a model approach

“…Scholars and practitioners have utilized the framework to gauge and measure specific components of RDM implementation. Ippoliti et al. (2018) used the maturity spectrum in a case study format to compare groups of libraries and for developing recommendations for best practices for scaling RDM services, such as: “identifying outreach opportunities, building strategic partnerships, engaging in professional development activities, as well as the allocation of resources toward providing research data services” (p. 8).…”

Advancing Research Data Management: A Social Capital Perspective on Functional Librarianship

“…As libraries are forming connections with researchers (Witt 2012;Akers et al 2014;Ippoliti et al 2018), schools and departments (Hiom et al 2015), interactions run the risk of the library being perceived as service provider, where librarians are not seen as equal research partners in the relationship. Claibourn (2015) describes a case where a library's RDM effort and leadership on campus surfaced feelings of territoriality.…”

“…Regardless of perceived symbolic positioning, libraries, prior to engaging in broader campus outreach, tend to mobilise their own functional and subject liaison units or librarians and connect with or form working groups, training programs or support teams (Witt 2012;Akers et al 2014;Ippoliti et al 2018). Connections with IT services also helps to bolster an initial RDM offering as the relationship between the library and IT is described as homophilous and complementary: libraries offer data preservation and curation expertise, and IT departments offer data storage, security and potentially HPC capacity, which promotes a reciprocity of referrals based on specific needs (Witt 2012).…”

“…Whether it is at the level of the dean/library director or via established groups, forming connections with administrative entities is pivotal to the success of establishing libraries as key partners and leaders for RDM at the institutional level (Akers et al 2014;Hiom et al 2015;Ippoliti et al 2018). It is notable that many of the outreach and partnership efforts in our sample are initially spearheaded by the dean/library director.…”