|
Thompson, S. Day
(2016). Preserving Transactional Data.
|
Investigated "the requirements for preserving transactional data and the accompanying challenges facing companies and institutions that aim to re-use these data for analysis or research." The report was commissioned to support the long-term preservation issues faced by UK ESRC-funded centres (Big Data Network Support (BDNS), which includes the Administrative Data Research Network (ADRN) and research centres that form the Business and Local Government Data initiative). |
Examined three use cases: Energy Demand Research Project: Early Smart Meter Trials at the UK Data Service (UKDS); Output Area Classification Data at the Consumer Data Research Centre (CDRC); Higher Education Data at the Administrative Data Research Network (ADRN) |
Measurement, Targeted |
|
ICU World Data System
(0). World Data System Certification.
|
A repository certification framework |
|
Metrics, Targeted |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Tenopir, C., Birch B., & Allard S.
(2012). Academic Libraries and Research Data Services: Current Practices and Future Plans.
|
Surveyed a cross section of academic library members of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) in the United States and Canada to provide a baseline assessment of the current state of and future plans for research data services in academic libraries in these countries |
Conducted an online survey of ACRL library directors |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Plietzsch, B.
(2013). How much (more) research data do we have, and where do we store it?.
|
Investigated storage requirements for research data within their respective school |
Conducted a survey of Campus Officers in different schools and research centers at the University of St. Andrews |
Measurement, Targeted |
|
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 |
|
Parsons, T., Grimshaw S., & Williamson L.
(2013). Research Data Management Survey.
|
Sought to understand the baseline of RDM practices, gather researcher requirements for RDM, and raise awareness of and gauge interest in a proposed service |
After testing on a smaller population, conducted an online survey of career researchers and post-doctoral researchers at the University of Nottingham using targeted email |
Measurement, 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 |
|
Mitcham, J., Awre C., Allinson J., Green R., & Wilson S.
(2015). Filling the Digital Preservation Gap. A JISC Research Data Spring Project. Phase One Report.
|
Investigated the use of Archivematica, a system designed to prepare data for long-term storage and access, to help preserve research data |
Reviewed funder obligations for data management and requirements for digital preservation and analyzed how Archivematica measures against them; conducted online surveys of research staff and students at York University to understand the landscape of research data management at York, and to gain insight into the software packages and top applications used; tested Archivematica with a range of file sizes, types, directory structures, descriptive information, workflows within Archivematica, and different places Archivematica could occupy in a broader research data management workflow. |
Measurement, Targeted, Wider |
|
McLure, M., Level A., Cranston C., Oehlerts B., & Culbertson M.
(2014). Data Curation: A Study of Researcher Practices and Needs.
portal: Libraries and the Academy. 14(2), 139 - 164. |
Investigated (1) the nature of data sets that researchers create or maintain; (2) How participants manage their data; (3) Needs for support that the participants identify in relation to sharing, curating, and preserving their data; and (4) The feasibility of adapting the Purdue University Libraries’ Data Curation Profiles Toolkit1 interview protocol for use in focus groups with researchers |
Conducted five focus groups with 31 faculty, research scientists, and research associates |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Kuipers, T., & van der Hoeven J.
(2009). PARSE.Insight: Insight into Digital Preservation of Research Output in Europe: Survey Report.
|
Sought to gain insight into issues surrounding the preservation of digital research data; investigated amount of data stored by researchers in Europe in 2008 or 2009 and amounts projected two and five years into the future |
Data was obtained from a question in a larger survey designed to gain insight into infrastructure needed for digital preservation |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Kroll, S., & Forsman R.
(2010). A Slice of Research Life: Information Support for Research in the United States.
|
Investigated use of tools and services that support of all stages of the research life cycle in institutions of higher education in the U.S. |
Conducted a literature review and interviews with researchers, research assistants, graduate students, grant and other research administration specialists, and university administrators at four prominent US research institutions |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Jerrome, N., & Breeze J.
(2009). Imperial College Data Audit Framework Implementation: Final Report.
|
To pilot the Digital Asset Framework Methodology; evaluate the scale and scope of research data; and make recommendations accordingly |
Used a modified form of the Digital Asset Framework in multiple departments: used the audit framework in a first phase of investigation, then conducted an online survey and follow up interviews. |
Measurement, Wider |
|
International Standards Organization
(2012). Space Data and Information Transfer Systems- Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ISO 16363:2012).
|
Provides a framework for evaluating digital repositories |
|
Metrics, Targeted |
|
Guindon, A.
(2014). Research Data Management at Concordia University: A Survey of Current Practices..
Feliciter. 60(2), 15 - 17. |
Assess what researchers were doing with the data they generated and whether they were interested in sharing it with the academic community and determine what types of research data management services the library could offer |
Conducted a survey of full-time faculty in four departments (Geography, Planning and Environment, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology and Anthropology); received 41 responses out of 11. Conducted post-survey interviews. Both the survey and interviews were based on the DCC Data Asset Framework. |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Gibbs, H.
(2009). Southampton Data Survey: Our Experience and Lessons Learned.
|
To pilot the Digital Asset Framework (or Digital Audit Framework) methodology |
Used a modified version of the Digital Asset Framework; modified mainly due to time considerations; distributed an online questionnaire and follow-up interviews with researchers at the University of Southampton |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Fearon, D., Gunia B., Pralle B., Lake S., & Sallans A.
(2013). ARL Spec Kit 334: Research data management services.
|
To assess early endeavors in research data services and benchmark future growth in ARL member libraries. |
Conducted a survey of ARL member libraries. 73 of 125 responded. |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Beagrie, N., Houghton J., Palaiologk A., & Williams P.
(2012). Economic Evaluation of Research Data Infrastructure.
|
Investigated the economic benefits of investments of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in the Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS), a service that promotes use of research data and teaching in social sciences to ensure data availability. |
Performed analysis of existing evaluation literature and reports, looking at both methods and findings; examined results of KRDS and other studies; examined management and internal data collected by ESRC and ESDS such as user statistics, internal reports, and the ESDS Mid-Term Review; performed semi-structured interviews, case studies, and an online survey of ESDS users and depositors |
Measurement, Targeted |
|
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 |
|
Averkamp, S., Gu X., & Rogers B.
(2014). Data Management at the University of Iowa: A University Libraries Report on Campus Research Data Needs.
|
This data management report was commissioned by the University of Iowa Libraries with the intention of performing a survey of the campus landscape and identifying gaps in data management services |
The first stage of data collection consisted of a survey conducted during summer 2012 to which 784 responses were received. The second phase of data collection consisted of approximately 40 in-depth interviews with individuals from the campus and were completed during summer 2013. The individuals engaged during the data collection phase spanned a diverse set of campus programs but should not be considered comprehensive. Information Technology Services was invited to participate in the interview process and has also contributed to this report. |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier K. K., Feldman S. I., Garcia-molina H., Klein M. L., Messerschmitt D. G., et al.
(2003). Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure : Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on.
|
Evaluated major investments in cyberinfrastructure; recommended new areas of emphasis relevant to cyberinfrastructure; proposed an implementation plan for pursuing these new areas of emphasis |
Conducted 62 presentations at invitational public testimony sessions and a community-wide survey receiving 700 responses; reviewed prior relevant reports; received written critique from 60 reviewers of the draft report; attended conferences and workshops; conducted numerous unsolicited conversations by email and phone and extensive deliberation among report panel members. |
Measurement, Targeted |
|
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 |
