|
Akers, K., & Doty J.
(2013). Disciplinary differences in faculty research data management practices and perspectives.
International Journal of Digital Curation. 8(2), 5 - 26. |
Investigated disciplinary differences in research data management needs at Emory University |
Sent email invitation to participate in online survey to all employees at Emory University with faculty status. 456 out of 5,590 (8%) initiated survey. 330 responded that conduct research that generates some kind of data and filled out one question |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Bardyn, T., Resnick T., & Camina S.
(2012). Translational Researchers’ Perceptions of Data Management Practices and Data Curation Needs: Findings from a Focus Group in an Academic Health Sciences Library.
Journal of Web Librarianship. 6(4), 274 - 287. |
Investigated the digital curation needs of translational researchers |
Conducted focus groups with eight faculty members in departments within the David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA |
Measurement, Targeted |
|
Beile, P.
(2014). The UCF Research Data Management Survey: A report of faculty practices and needs.
|
Investigated faculty data management needs and practices at the University of Central Florida |
Conducted an online survey containing 33 questions. There were 534 valid recipients and 97 who partially or fully completed the survey. |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Bergin, M. Banach
(2013). Sabbatical Report: Summary of Survey Results on Digital Preservation Practices at 148 Institutions.
|
Investigate how digital preservation programs were implemented in institutions with established programs |
Conducted an online survey and follow-up interviews with 12 librarians and archivists from various institutions. The survey received 148 responses [from libraries and archives]. 100 people finished the survey.
"...I received responses from all types of institutions including national libraries, state libraries, academic libraries, public libraries, church and corporate archives, national parks archives, historical societies, research data centers, and presidential libraries. Roughly a third of the respondents were from large academic institutions with more than 20,000 students, another third were from smaller academic institutions with less than 20,000 students, and the remaining third were from non-academic institutions." |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Borgman, C. L., Darch P. T., Sands A. E., Wallis J. C., & Traweek S.
(2014). The Ups and Downs of Knowledge Infrastructures in Science: Implications for Data Management.
Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 2014 (DL2014). |
Compared data management activities of four large, distributed, multidisciplinary scientific endeavors to gain insight into the domain expertise and expertise in organizing and retrieving complex data objects necessary for successful infrastructures for research data |
Findings are based on interviews (n=113 to date), ethnography, and other analyses of four cases (two big science and two small science), studied since 2002 |
Measurement, Targeted |
|
Fry, J., Lockyer S.., Oppenheim C.., Houghton J.W.., & Rasmussen B..
(2008). Identifying benefits arising from the curation and open sharing of research data produced within UK Higher Education and research institutes: exploring costs and benefits.
|
Investigated the benefits of the curation and open sharing of research data and the development of a methodology and model for estimating the benefits of data curation and sharing in UK higher education |
Performed a literature review to provide illustrative examples of reuse and the views of stakeholders in various disciplines towards data curation and sharing; conducted two case studies to identify and illustrate benefits and costs in these areas |
Measurement, Metrics, Wider |
|
Open Exeter Project Team
(2012). Summary Findings of the Open Exeter Data Asset Framework Survey.
|
Investigated how researchers at the University of Exeter created data, where they stored their data, whether they backed up their data and what happened to their data when the project was finished |
Adapted from the Data Curation Centre’s Data Asset Framework methodology, an online survey was created and follow up interviews were conducted with respondents. |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Peters, C., & Dryden A.
(2011). Assessing the Academic Library's Role in Campus-Wide Research Data Management: A First Step at the University of Houston.
Science & Technology Libraries. 30(4), 387 - 403. |
Interviewed PIs of significant grants, to assess individuals in as many science and engineering departments as possible, and to obtain information on data management practices from both individual and group-based projects |
Conducted interviews with PIs of 10 projects (14 contacted), as well as one Co-PI, one post-doctorate and one graduate student associated with one of the projects) |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Scaramozzino, J., Ramírez M., & McGaughey K.
(2012). A Study of Faculty Data Curation Behaviors and Attitudes at a Teaching-Centered University.
College & Research Libraries. 73(4), 349 - 365. |
Investigated science researchers’ data curation awareness, behaviors, and attitudes, as well as what needs they exhibited for services and education regarding maintenance and management of data |
Distributed survey via email to 331 College of Science and Mathematics faculty at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), a master’s-granting, teaching-centered institution. Filtered results to include only science faculty from the Biology, Chemistry, Kinesiology, Mathematics, Physics, and Statistics departments who engaged in data collection in the course of their research (131 tenure-track faculty; 82 responded (62.6%) |
Measurement, Wider |
|
UNC-CH
(2012). Research Data Stewardship at UNC: Recommendations for Scholarly Practice and Leadership.
|
Sought to identify policy options for digital research data stewardship at UNC; further understanding of the full-breadth of activities, concerns, and opinions surrounding research data stewardship among researchers at UNC-CH |
Conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 faculty researchers representing several disciplines at UNC-CH; conducted an online survey of all faculty members, graduate students, and staff assigned to departments that engage in research |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Waller, M., & Sharpe R.
(2006). Mind the Gap: Assessing Digital Preservation Needs in the UK.
|
A study carried out for the Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) to reveal the extent of the risk of loss or degradation to digital material held in the UK's public and private sectors |
Surveyed 900 individuals from a wide range of organisations in different sectors. The selected individuals all had an assumed interest in digital preservation as part of their professional responsibilities, and included a range of roles including records managers, archivists, librarians, but also IT managers and data producers. 104 responses were received, giving a good response rate of over 10%. These included respondents from education, libraries, archives, museums, local and central government bodies, scientific research institutions, and from organisations in the pharmaceutical, financial, manufacturing and engineering, media, energy and chemical, and publishing sectors.
Note: Discusses duration for keeping data.
|
Measurement, Wider |
|
Wynholds, L., Fearon, Jr. D. S., Borgman C. L., & Traweek S.
(2011). When Use Cases Are Not Useful: Data Practices, Astronomy, and Digital Libraries.
383 - 386. |
Sought to understand issues in developing the institutions and practices needed to provide access to research data |
Conducted interviews of users of the SDSS dataset covering their type of research, participation in sky survey projects, data challenges, conceptions of data, data sources, data analysis tools, walk-throughs, end of project curation, and funding structures for data |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Bigagli, L., Sveinsdottir T., Wessels B., Smallwood R., Linde P., Tsoukala V., et al.
(2014). Infrastructural and technological challenges and potential solutions.
|
Investigated infrastructural and technological barriers to Open Access and preservation of research data in Europe. This work was conducted within the EU FP7 funded project RECODE, which focuses on developing policy recommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe. In particular, this work is coordinated by RECODE Work Package 2 (WP2), Infrastructure and technology. It distinguishes between different categories of stakeholders in terms of how the experience and respond to these challenges |
Conducted desk research, an online survey, interviews, and a validation workshop |
Measurement, Metrics, Wider |
|
Noorman, M., Kalaitzi V., Angelaki M., Tsoukala V., Linde P., Sveinsdottir T., et al.
(2014). Institutional barriers and good practice solutions.
|
Investigated challenges faced by institutions, such as archives, libraries, universities, data centres and funding bodies, in making open access to research data possible. This work was conducted within the EU FP7 funded project RECODE, which focuses on developing policy recommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe. |
Conducted desk research, case study interviews, and a validation workshop |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Finn, R., Wadhwa K., Taylor M. J., Sveinsdottir T., Noorman M., & Sondervan J.
(2014). Legal and ethical barriers and good practice solutions.
|
Identify legal and ethical issues relevant to open access to research data in Europe, identify examples that illuminate these issues, and identify potential solutions currently being used to address these issues |
Conducted a literature review, five disciplinary case studies, and a validation workshop |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Sveinsdottir, T., Wessels B., Smallwood R., Linde P., Kala V., Tsoukala V., et al.
(2013). Stakeholder values and relationships within open access and data dissemination and preservation ecosystems.
|
Identify and map the diverse range of stakeholder values in Open Access data and data dissemination and preservation; map stakeholder values on to research ecosystems using case studies from different disciplinary perspectives; conduct a workshop to evaluate and identify good practice in addressing conflicting value chains and stakeholder fragmentation. This work was conducted within the EU FP7 funded project RECODE, which focuses on developing policy recommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe. |
Conducted desk research, case study interviews, and a validation workshop |
Measurement, Metrics, Wider |
|
Roche, D. G., Kruuk L. E. B., Lanfear R., & Binning S. A.
(2015). Public Data Archiving in Ecology and Evolution: How Well Are We Doing?.
PLOS Biol. 13(11), e1002295. |
Investigated the quality of 100 datasets deposited in Dryad and "associated with nonmolecular studies in journals that commonly publish ecological and evolutionary research and have a strong PDA policy" |
Evaluated the completeness and reusability of datasets based on criteria described in the paper |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
Yakel, E., & Faniel I.
(2013). Dissemination Information Packages for Information Reuse.
|
Studied "data reuse in three academic disciplines to identify how contextual information about the data that supports reuse can best be created and preserved. The project focuses on research data produced and used by quantitative social scientists, archaeologists, and zoologists." (http://www.oclc.org/research/themes/user-studies/dipir.html) |
Used a variety of methods including a survey, analysis of online behavior, and user observations |
Measurement, Targeted |
