Data Management Policy - An Interview with Paul Taylor
Dr. Paul Taylor works at the University of Melbourne and has just finished a 2 week secondment in the UK with the JISC-funded EIDCSR (Embedding Institutional Data Curation Services in Research) project based in Oxford. This is an approximate transcript of a quick 5 minute interview between Paul and Neil Grindley (JISC Information Environment Programme Manager)
NG
Hi Paul, thanks for sparing the time out of a very busy schedule … what role do you have in the EIDCSR project?
PT
Thanks Neil … I’m here to help them come up with a draft policy for the management of research data and records. It’s something we’ve had in place at the University of Melbourne since 2005 and we’ve just completed a revision of the policy to hopefully help make it a little more useful for researchers.
NG
Tell us a little bit more about how that policy has been developed at the University of Melbourne and the reactions to it from researchers and data managers.
PT
As I said, we’ve had policy in place since 2005 and early this year we were asked to work out how compliant we were with it, on the basis that if you have a policy and no-one pays any attention to it, its probably not much use keeping it there! Not surprisingly, we found out that most people weren’t compliant and also didn’t really know that the policy was there. We’re hoping that was the reason that they weren’t compliant rather than any sort of animosity against policies in general - but that’s still to be determined.
We reviewed the policy for two reasons: firstly to try and make it of more use to researchers (… there’s limits to that because when you are writing a policy to go across the institution, it has to contain really high level principles about the management of research data. If you get too specific you rule large populations out and then people pay even less attention to it than they did before). Secondly, its to get some attention and a bit of refocus on the data management area. There are a lot of things happening at the university at the moment in terms of the services that the university intends to provide for it’s researchers and some other changes in the Australian environment. We’re hoping to lock the high-level principles away in policy documentation and focus on keeping the guidance, information and support materials up to date and relevant for researchers.
NG
The sustainability of keeping that guidance and information for researchers up to date is a real issue. Capturing their feedback and working it back into future iterations of those materials (and ultimately the policy documentation) is a desirable outcome but also a big challenge isn’t it?
PT
Yes, it is.
NG
How do you think that the policy that you’ve developed in Melbourne transposes to the University of Oxford?
PT
That’s a good question … one of the things that we’ve learnt from the 2005 version of the policy is that its not enough to have the central policy on its own. There needs to be some kind of localisation of the policies and so with this new version of our policy we’ll be asking faculties to come up with their own enhancements so that it makes more sense to their researchers, and then probably get departments to do the same thing. I’d imagine the same sort of system could work at Oxford but it would be a little more complex with the number of people that would need to be involved in coming up with these localised versions of the policy. The hope is that there will be a trickle down effect from the high-level policies which have a practical influence on the way that researchers go about managing data.
In the meetings that I’ve had since I’ve been here, there have been some excellent examples of data managers and data management researchers (I guess you’d call them) who are working closely (one-on-one) with researchers who have come up with some excellent and novel solutions. I think the more that that can happen - a sort of resourcing at the coal face - then the more likelihood there is of high level principles trickling down to meet some of the very local one-on-one researcher-based developments. At that stage, perhaps there would be a general improvement in the management of research data across the institution.
One of the things I’ve heard a lot from people is the need for it to be a federated system. A lot of the departmental research groups have come up with their own systems for managing their own research data. Anything new that is provided centrally from the university has to try and complement those processes rather than take them over. That wouldn’t work well here (in Oxford) and it wouldn’t work in Melbourne. It would tend to antagonise people rather than improve the situation.
NG
Yes … that principle of embedding existing processes and workflows into broader policy initiatives is an important concept for institutions grappling with these kinds of issues at the moment. Thanks very much Paul.
PT
Thanks
University of Melbourne - Policy on the Management of Research Data and Records (2005)
http://www.unimelb.edu.au/records/research.html
Review of Policy on the Management of Research Data and Records (2009)
http://research.unimelb.edu.au/integrity/conduct/data/review
EIDCSR Project (Embedding Institutional Data Curation Services in Research)
http://eidcsr.oucs.ox.ac.uk/
#res3
Repositories and Research Management Systems
There have been discussions over the years about the potential of repositories to play a role in research management systems, supporting universities’ ability to report, for example, for the Research Assessment Exercise. A few universities have gone down that road a long way, while others have not. Indeed, various surveys (eg infoNet work) suggest that research information management in UK universities is supported by a rather patchy infrastructure.
A new JISC report from Rightscom gives a summary of the extent to which repositories and research management systems are integrated in the UK, and abstracts from this a table of institutional drivers that would support such integration. This will be a useful tool to repository managers and others building a case for a role for institutional repositories in research information management.
Of course, this needs to be seen in the wider context of UK and worldwide developments in research information management.
‘Article level’ usage statistics from publishers and repositories
Usage statistics for electronic journals are increasingly standardised and usable thanks to the collaborative efforts of publishers, other information providers and librarians in developing and implementing the COUNTER codes of practice.
But what do you do if you need usage statistics for individual articles by a particular author published across different journals and also held across different institutional or subject repositories? This question is increasingly relevant when considering how to measure the ‘impact’ of research, for example.
The PIRUS (Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics ) project explored how usage statistics for individual articles could be collected from repositories and publishers and then combined to produce consolidated usage reports. PIRUS proposed a number of ways in which this could be done. A report was published in January 2009.
Now this work is to continue with a follow-on project - PIRUS2 - which has the following main objectives. To:
• Develop a suite of free, open source programmes to support the generation and sharing of COUNTER compliant usage data and statistics that can be extended to cover any and all individual items in institutional and subject repositories
• Develop a prototype article level publisher/repository statistics service
• Define a core set of standard useful statistical reports that repositories could/should produce for internal and external consumption
The project formally starts on 1st October 2009 and finishes as the end of 2010.
There are a number of project partners, the main ones being: MIMAS, Cranfield University (Library & Information Services), COUNTER, CrossRef and Oxford University Press.
This post is just to alert you to the existence of the project. More information about the project will be made available on the JISC Web site in due course.
Data in Nature
Finally got around to looking at the article on data that appeared on the Nature website last week.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7261/full/461145a.html
Very nice to see JISC mentioned so positively in the editorial. They mention the Digital Curation Centre by name which is obviously one of the key pieces of support and infrastructure that JISC is funding to ensure that UK universities and colleges have access to advice and guidance in the handling and managing of research and other types of data.
Some other resources they didn’t have space to mention …The DCC (in collaboration with the Research Information Network) run the Research Data Manager’s Forum. This is a series of meetings that have brought a number of practitioners, funders and other stakeholders together to examine and discuss the issues facing data managers and curators.
http://data-forum.blogspot.com/
There is a mailing list available that is geared towards this community
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=RESEARCH-DATAMAN
There is a recent report (Nov 2008) that looks at the Benefits of Curating and Sharing Research Data.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/databenefitsfinalreport.aspx
Another report (Jan 2009) looks at various national infrastructures enabling the sharing of data.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/preservation/nationaldata.aspx
Earlier reports are available … one looking at the skills, roles and career structures that are required to support data scientists
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/dataskillscareersfinalreport.aspx
All of which build on a report from 2007 authored by Liz Lyon, “Dealing with Data”.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/dealingwithdatareportfinal.aspx
The JISC Research Data Management programme is now in full swing and is in the process of starting 8 new major projects that will examine various aspects of Data Management Infrastructure. These projects will be supported by the DCC and other initiatives that will progress specific areas of complementary work (e.g.Tools).
http://researchdata.jiscinvolve.org/
If you’re a developer interested in library services - AND you haven’t got anything to do this weekend…then read this:
The JISC MOSAIC project is holding a competition to discover what can be done with library usage data. It closes at 23.59 this coming Monday. They’re looking for compelling applications, interfaces and mash-ups that use the data in research, learning and libraries etc.
• First prize - £1000 sterling
• Second Prize - £250 sterling
• Third Prize - £100 sterling
The competition closes on Monday 14th September 2009
Further details about the competition:
http://www.sero.co.uk/jisc-mosaic-competition.html
Good Luck!!
Economic case for open access
This morning, JISC released the report by John Houghton and Charles Oppenheim on the economic costs and benefits of three different models of scholarly communication – subscription, ‘gold’ open access and self-archiving with overlay services. The findings suggest that there are both considerable cost savings to be made by the HE sector by moving to open access, and significant benefits to the UK economy to be gained by doing so. Both the potential cost savings and the benefits run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
This is obviously important. It’s also important to stress that the research has been robust (we think it’s the most detailed modelling of scholarly communication), conservative (eg, the figures for cost savings and benefits to the UK economy assume that no subscriptions are cancelled), transparent (assumptions are clearly listed, and there is a simplified online model here where you can enter your own data to see the effect) and balanced (each model runs with a 20% return for those operating it).
[Please note the online model is an exe file, so you need to save it locally and run it as an application. It is does require some time to understand, and the notes are worth reading. Even simplified, the modelling is not simple]
There’s an outline of the report here, with links to the full version. Because it’s a complex piece of work, with potentially large implications, we have resisted the temptation to collapse the findings into a two-page summary at the moment, and instead we hope those interested will take the time at least to read the extended summary.
Information Environment (IE) & Virtual Research Environments (VRE) call for proposals: Briefing Day notes/Q & A
On 15th December a briefing day on the Information Environment and e-Research JISC Circular (12/08) was held. The event was held in order to provide an overview of the circular and to give people the opportunity to ask questions. The circular has £11m of JISC funding against it which is quite substantial. The calls in 12/08 focus on: digital repositories for learning and research, virtual research environments, use of text-mining and automatic meta-data generation and digital preservation. So in short the circular is seeking projects that are mainly about the creation, management and sharing of information that is part of the research and learning process in ways that support researchers, learners, teachers and administrators.
Here are the links to the presentations from the Briefing Day:
Policy and bid submission
Automated Metadata and Text-mining- strand A1
Digital Repositories: Start-up, rapid innovation and enhancement - strands A3- A5
Developing e-infrastructure to support research disciplines and digital preservation exemplars - strands A2 and A6
Virtual Research Environments (VRE) - strands B1-B3
Notes of the discussion and questions and answers from the briefing day:
IE and VRE Circular 12/08 15 December Briefing Day questions and answers
For some notes of the whole event as it went along see Andy Powell’s (Eduserv Foundation) live blog.
A few points of context:
JISC has funded projects and services in all of these areas previously. So what is different this time? I would say there are three general issues that underpin the projects sought in this circular:
* reflecting the maturity of digital repositories and other types of ‘e-infrastructure’ this circular is seeking further and improved alignment of these systems with user requirements. An emphasis in the calls is the need to involve/take into account end-users and a bringing together of these ‘e-infrastructure’ systems with research and learning processes.
* both the IE and the VRE strands of activity are about building on previous investment and lessons - so these are not completely new areas of activity. In the case of repository and digital preservation activity for example we’re seeking more repositories, improved repositories and policies, further integration with other systems and in areas such as digital preservation we’re looking for actual implementation of solutions that have previously been developed. However although this circular is generally about implementing areas where there has already been substantial work the projects are about improvement and so will involve new ideas and development.
* recognition that in many cases cross domain teams and skills are required to create, manage, use and develop digital systems, supporting policies and related practices within institutions.
The decision to publish the IE and VRE call strands together was partly a practical one as both funding areas were due to issue circulars at the same time, but there was more to this decision than that. Publishing them together was, I think, essential in terms of showing that information systems should not be developed independently of the requirements of the research process. I think if we’d published the calls separately there would’ve been a danger of perpetuating this often unhelpful division. In particular the projects sought under A2, Developing e-infrastructure to support research disciplines bridge both areas and seek to bring the research process and scholarly communications requirements together with underlying information systems. This particular strand in the IE calls also represents the fact that developing the Information Environment (or e-infrastructure) is not just about managing and disseminating information it is about supporting and improving research (and of course learning and teaching, although the projects called for under A2 focus on research). I think the connections that are emerging between both the IE and VRE programme areas are a good thing and are inevitable to progress.
The Information Environment (and Virtual Research Environment) Call for Proposals November 2008
The JISC is calling for proposals relating to the ‘Information Environment’ and ‘Virtual Research Environments’. This blog post relates only to those elements of the Call relating to the Information Environment, that is Strands A1-A6:
- Automated metadata generation & text mining (JISC contact: Balviar Notay b.notay@jisc.ac.uk or Amber Thomas amber.thomas@jisc.ac.uk)
- Developing e-infrastructure to support research disciplines (JISC contact: Neil Grindley n.grindley@jisc.ac.uk)
- Repositories: start-up (JISC contact: Andy McGregor a.mcgregor@jisc.ac.uk)
- Repositories: rapid innovation (JISC contact: Andy McGregor a.mcgregor@jisc.ac.uk)
- Repositories: enhancement (JISC contact: Neil Jacobs n.jacobs@jisc.ac.uk or Andy McGregor a.mcgregor@jisc.ac.uk)
- Preservation exemplars (JISC contact: Neil Grindley n.grindley@jisc.ac.uk)
There is also an accompanying briefing document which describes important background information, and outlines some requirements that are being placed on repositories that are involved in bids under these headings. The Call itself spells out the aims and intended scope of projects under these headings, so I won’t repeat it all here.
There will be a Briefing Day on 15th December 2008.
The purpose of this blog post is to be the anchor for an FAQ relating to Strands A1-A6 of the Call. If you have queries relating to these strands of the Call, you can contact the relevant JISC person as noted above and in the Call document, or you can add a comment to this blog post. Either way, if the query would be relevant to other bidders then our response will be via a further comment added to this blog post. In this way we hope to build up an FAQ that all potential bidders can access easily and quickly. We’d also welcome comments (or emails) on the use of the blog for this purpose.
“… to engage or not engage…” the choice for libraries.
A couple of weeks ago I attended the RLUK conference, their first conference and one that everyone there seemed to enjoy. Unfortunately I only made it for the last day for a slot where a panel of funders, policy bodies and service providers, including JISC, said a few words about priorities and partnership with others.
I did get to hear Lynne Brindley speak. She covered a lot of ground and most of what she said chimed with JISC priorities; albeit coming from a different set of organisational boundaries. Anyway I thought I’d just jot down what Lynne said as I think the issues she raised are well worth recounting here. I might’ve misinterpreted some things, especially since it was a while ago now but on the whole I think I’ve captured the main points.
In general she was referring to the fact that in the complex digital environment offering services that remain relevant and take advantage of what Lynne called “mass creativity” can be difficult. But she said the choice for libraries is “ to engage or not engage”. Unsurprisingly the message was to engage.
A summary of issues she raised:
• Developing digital information services does incur a cost. A lot of innovative projects have been developed but we have not yet fully tackled sustainability.
• Libraries should support innovative scholarship. We’re now in a complex world where the web is a platform of “mass creativity” but offers real opportunities for innovative scholarship. She referred to some examples where digitisation and making digital resources available have led to new knowledge.
• Libraries need to move well beyond the critical role they play in licensing and recognise that things like document supply are not as relevant as they once were.
• “life beyond the document” how should libraries respond to this?
• The research data question and the skills gap – we have data librarians but not enough of them; traditionally libraries are more orientated towards humanities.
• Masses of information of different types – blogs, email etc are all important to scholarship they are the ephemeral information of today; what are we doing about versions of works or notes and annotations? Think of authorship and how notes are kept of authors that enhance research.
• Many people use information in different ways, skim reading etc, therefore should delivery be different, does it matter that people use information differently? Information literacy does that matter? Should libraries be helping to equip people with the skills to make the right judgments?
• The researchers of the future (and quite a few researching now) come from the born digital age and will use information differently, so what is information literacy?
• Web archiving: the web is a huge resource that must be accessible into the future for research; the legal issues are a problem but hopefully legal deposit will make a difference.
• The value of the library can sometimes be summarised as: authenticity, authority and long-term use – what about authority v amateur?
• Digital preservation is very important – this has been seen as important at policy and government levels but now it is getting into the public conscience - this is when libraries start to have real success with these issues. Just tell someone that all those photos will not be accessible and they can relate to it.
• She ended on intellectual property (IP) and referred to the EU Green Paper on Copyright and how IP deserved attention and organisations, such as academic libraries, needed to take action so any risk of locking information down further was mitigated. She emphasised that without reasonable copyright exceptions there is a risk to democratic society.
A lot of these issues are being addressed by libraries and organisations like the British Library and JISC, for example we’re responding to the EU Green Paper on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy. But despite that all of the issues require further debate and change.
JISC is about to launch a collaborative initiative with SCONUL, RLUK, The British Library and RIN that builds on our Libraries of the Future campaign and that will seek to further understand and shape the position of libraries into the future. Watch this space…it should be announced shortly.