|
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 |
|
Alexogiannopoulos, E., McKenney S., & Pickton M.
(2010). Research Data Management Project: a DAF investigation of research data management practices at The University of Northampton.
|
Investigated research data management practices at the University of Northampton, specifically the types of data held by researchers throughout the university, researchers‟ existing data management practices, and the risks associated with these practices. |
Used the Digital Asset Framework methodology |
Measurement, Wider |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Martinez-Uribe, L.
(2009). Using the Data Audit Framework: An Oxford Case Study.
|
Piloted the Digital Asset Framework methodology in work to scope digital repository services for research data management |
Adapted the Digital Asset Framework methodology |
Measurement, 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Perry, C.
(2008). Archiving of publicly funded research data: A survey of Canadian researchers..
Government Information Quarterly. 25(1), 133 - 148. |
To assess researchers’ attitudes and behaviours in relation to archiving research data and to determine researchers’ views about policies relating to data archiving. Investigated how much of the data being produced in the course of SSHRC-funded research is being archived. Surveyed social sciences and humanities researchers from universities across Canada. |
A questionnaire comprising 15 questions was mailed to 175 researchers randomly sampled from a publicly available list of 5,821 individuals who had received grants and awards from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). From this sample, 75 (43.4%) responded within the five week time-frame stipulated. The questionnaire was constructed using four existing surveys and asked researchers for information about: geographical location, years of research experience, research funding sources, current plans to archive research data, awareness of archiving policies, attitude to mandated research data archiving, effect of mandatory data archiving policies on grant-seeking, attitude to making archived research data accessible, and use of research data collected by others. The questionnaire also included space for respondents to make comments. |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
