Institutional Research Data Management: Policies, Planning, Services And Surveys
Data Management Consultant
Johns Hopkins University
Partnerships, Collaborations, and Funding
Center for Open Science
Senior Program Officer
ARL SPEC Survey Results: Lessons Learned and Insights for Senior Administrators Developing Research Data Management Services (Fearon, Sallans)
Using the Association for Research Libraries (ARL) SPEC Kit framework, the research data management teams at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Virginia worked together to conduct a survey and produce a report on research data management services offered by ARL-member research libraries. This study built upon the “E-Science and Data Support Services” study published by ARL in 2010. The results of the survey were quite informative as a snapshot of current practices and serve as a benchmark for this emerging domain of library services. Additionally, the process of developing the study allowed our team to reflect on the macro issues surrounding provision of research data management services within library environments and in relation to campus-wide support. In addition to presenting key survey findings, this project briefing includes highlights of what was discussed in developing the study in relation to what was observed in the data. This talk goes beyond what was reported in the publication, providing useful lessons learned and insights that may help inform decisions for developing research data management services.
University-wide Data Policy Planning (Erway)
Most universities have scrambled to respond to external requirements for data management plans, but the benefits of university-wide data planning and policy argue for a more proactive approach, involving all the stakeholders, to develop a high-level policy for responsible data planning and management. This presentation includes discussion of the benefits and identifies the various university stakeholders (Office of Research, Research Compliance Office, information technology, academic departments, the researchers, and the library) and the concerns they bring to the table. It suggests a conversation among the stakeholders that addresses ownership, selection, retention periods, ethical considerations, openness, costs, preservation, access, and alternatives to local data management.
Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
Fall 2013 Membership Meeting
December 9-10, 2013