Two views of the data documentation initiative: Stakeholders, collaboration and metadata standards creation

Abstract

This paper uses boundary work theory (Gieryn, 1983, among others) to analyze the differences in organizational participation in the creation and maintenance of the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) standard. The Data Documentation Initiative is a global consensus standard created to describe social science research data. Specifically, the paper addresses how two key social science data archives (SSDA) -the Interuniversity Consortium of Political and Social Research (ICPSR) and the United Kingdom Data Archive (UKDA) -mobilized their differences as resources to create DDI. This paper describes the collaborative activities of the two organizations. It also analyzes how those differences in collaboration resulted in boundary or "juncture" activities and the role those activities played in organizational maintenance. Our study compares how one organization, ICPSR, engaged in translating and aligning activities related to the development of the standard, while the other data archive, UKDA, engaged in decentering activities. The paper uses this case of standards work to reflect on the role of boundaries as resources for organizational resilience over the long-term.

Metadata Standard for Continuous Preservation, Discovery, and Reuse of Research Data in Repositories by Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Review

“…For example, for HEIs, human and technical resources are needed for the creation of metadata in academic repositories. Williams, Shankar, and Eschenfelder [16] indicated the need for more institution actors, such as scholarly disciplines, related professions, and the institutions' top members. Development of DDI was finalised through inter-organisational collaboration connected, where stakeholders worked together to create the DDI metadata standards [16]; they also established and maintained their specific orientations toward both the project and the boundaries between institutions, which led to the creation and successful implementation of metadata standards [16].…”

“…Williams, Shankar, and Eschenfelder [16] indicated the need for more institution actors, such as scholarly disciplines, related professions, and the institutions' top members. Development of DDI was finalised through inter-organisational collaboration connected, where stakeholders worked together to create the DDI metadata standards [16]; they also established and maintained their specific orientations toward both the project and the boundaries between institutions, which led to the creation and successful implementation of metadata standards [16]. Chapepa, Ngwira, and Mapulanga [33] add that Qualified Dublin Core (QDC) was chosen by all participants as the only metadata structure scheme that they will use to create and implement metadata in the repository.…”

“…The scope of metadata standards includes ontologies, taxonomies, name authority files, and other types of knowledge organisation systems (KOS) [7]. The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) divided metadata into three main groups: descriptive metadata, administrative metadata, and structural metadata [13][14][15][16][17]. Administrative metadata are further classified into technical metadata, right metadata, and preservation metadata [14,18].…”