|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
