Dumas, Chloe

Horton, Laurence

Recker, Astrid

LSE Research Online

"The road to data sharing is paved with good intentions": Looking at Institutional Research Data Policies   Laurence Horton, London School of Economics and Political Science Astrid Recker, GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences Chloe Dumas, Enssib "The road to data sharing is paved with good intentions": Looking at Institutional Research Data Policies by Laurence Horton, Astrid Recker, Chloe Dumas is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  Contact Laurence Horton E: L.Horton@lse.ac.uk Tw: @laurencedata Orcid: orcid.org/0000-0003-2742-6434  Prevalence of Institutional Research Data Polices Number of Research Data Policies by country 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 UK Germany France Canada (French speaking) Explaining differences between UK and Germany Federal state with a strong tradition of independence for professors and universities Strong centralised public funding regime for research and universities Share of UK HEI's with a Data Policy by Russell Group membership Member 42% Non-member 58% Cohort group in which the UK HEI with Research Data Policy was established  Ancient (1100-1800) 6% Nineteenth century (1801-1899) 23% Civic universities (1900-1960) 23% Plate glass universities (1961-1968) 19% Intermediate era (1969-1991) 0% New universities (1992-2000) 13% Second wave of new universities (2001-2015) 16% UK HEI Research Data Policies word count 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 University of Birmingham University of London School of Oxford Brooks University The University of University of University College Edge Hill University University of Liverpool University of the Arts King's College London University of Durham University of Manchester University of Warwick University of Oxford University of Exeter* University of Dundee Glyndwr University Queen Mary, University University for the University of Lincoln University of Sheffield University of University of East London University of Essex University of Bath University of Nottingham University of Leeds Goldsmiths University University of Edinburgh Brunel University Overview • Recommend: The policy is a document to provide weight for RDM and data sharing. To that end, a policy should – Raise awareness in institutions of RDM and re-use – Raise awareness and clarify issues of data ownership – Outline broad institutional responsibilities for RDM. Framework • Digital Curation Centre. 2014. Five Steps to Developing a Research Data Management Policy [PDF]. Edinburgh: Digital Curation Centre. http://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/DCC-FiveStepsToDevelopingAnRDMpolicy.pdf  • Erway, Ricky. 2013. Starting the Conversation: University-wide Research Data Management Policy. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Research. http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/2013-08.pdf  Research Data Policy definitions of key RDM terms by year adopted  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 No Year Definitions No Definitions Length of definition of "Data/Research Data" in selected Research UK HEI Research Data Policies 19	 21	22	29	49	74	104	0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Edge Hill University of Nottingham University of the Arts London Oxford Brooks University of Liverpool UCL University of Lancaster Word count UK HEI Research data policies definition of key RDM terms by Russell Group membership Definition Russell Group Not Russell Group Total Yes (Row %) 7 (43%) 9 (56%) 16 (52%) No (Row %) 6 (40%) 9 (60%) 15 (48%) TOTAL (Column %) 13 (42%) 18 (58%) 31 (100%) Definitions • Recommend: State that data is an asset in its own right and include a phrase about it being recognised as such. • Definitions of what “data” best left to supporting documentation to define on a devolved basis. Policy broadly defines the role institution plays in supporting RDM and outlines RDM responsibility of researchers 9% 12% 79% No institutional support mentioned Institutional support mentioned Institutional support mentioned and specified Support • Recommend: Policies should define a level of responsibility for the institution, not just the researchers. • Exact responsibilities could be left to supporting documentation but state who is involved in RDM.   Requirement to complete a DMP No 10% Either optional funder required but fields not specified 7% Yes, institutional or funder, with fields specified 83% Data Management Plans • Recommend: suggest a DMP is recommended in a way that highlights how it underpins good RDM practice. • A DMP requirement brings in resource questions so consider that. Research Data Policy specifies who it covers 19% 19% 62% No Staff Staff and Students Scope • Recommend: Communities of research activity need to know if this policy applies to them. • To whom does the policy apply:  – Staff (including or excluding visiting staff?) – PhD students? – all postgraduates – Undergraduates  Policy contains a statement on institutional ownership of research data No 73% Yes 27% Ownership • Recommend: Ownership of intellectual property is usually covered by employment and funding contracts. Therefore, this point is more one of awareness, but it can provide cover when necessary.  Policy contains a statement on the primacy of external funding requirements No 24% Mention of contractual/funding requirements 27% Specified where funder policies take priority 49% External arrangement • Recommend: Agreements between researchers, institutions, and funders cover this area. However, it is useful to contain a policy statement on the primacy of these agreements for the sake of clarity.  Policy specifies criteria on what data and documentation is required to be retained No 33% Non-specified reference, or criteria specified in supporting document 43% Yes, specified 24% UK HEI Policy specifies criteria on what data and documentation is required to be retained Russell Group Not Russell Group Total No (Row %) 4 (44%) 5 (56%) 9 (29%) Non-specified reference, or criteria specified in supporting document (Row %) 4 (29%) 10 (71%) 14 (45%) Yes, specified (Row %) 5 (63%) 3 (38%) 8 (26%) TOTAL (Column %) 13 (42%) 18 (58%) 31 (100%) Retention criteria • Recommendation: The question of what to keep can be better addressed by a support service in conjunction with the researchers and archives/repositories.  Policy contains a statement on length of time data should be kept 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 No Mentioned but not specified Specified length Number UK HEI Policy contains a statement on length of time data should be kept 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Not mentioned Not-specified 3 years 5 years 10 years Number of polices Length of retention • Recommendation: Funder policies will vary, may change, and will take precedence. It is arguably better to define retention as “long-term” with specific details addressed by the institutional repository using guidance from funder policies and disciplinary norms. Policy contains a statement on the ethical use/reuse of data, particularly how it affects potential reuse No 10% Mentions of relevant legislation on data protection/FoI 10% Yes 80% Ethics • Recommendation: Include a statement about requiring data be “shared to the fullest extent possible”. The policy should recognise commercial, contractual, legal, and ethical restrictions that prevent open data being possible, but still allow for data sharing. Policy contains a statement on how data will be accessed No 11% External archive or repository with details available through university 24% University repository and/or external 65% Access • Recommendation: that the policy include a requirement for all generated research data – even if deposited elsewhere - to have a catalogue reference in publications repository, or Library catalogue. Policy contains a statement on data availability No 13% Non-specified 22% Specified requirement for data to be open (subject to funders/ethics) 65% Open • Recommendation: Better to not mention specific types of licences for data.   Policy contains a statement on costing of RDM No mention 75% Mention 25% Costs • Recommendation: given the difficulty in identifying costs and variation in how different researchers see this as their responsibility, it would be better not to mention costing. Supporting advice can be given either through the RDM service or Research Office. UK HEI period policies state they are subject to review 0	2	4	6	8	10	12	None Non-specified One year Two years Three years Number of Policies UK HEI Policy states it is subject to periodic review by year of adoption No year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL None (Row %) 1 (9%) 2 (18%) 4 (36%) 3 (27%) 1 (9%) 11 Non-specified (Row %) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 7 One year (Row %) 1 (13%) 1 (13%) 1 (13%) 4 (50%) 1 (13%) 8 Two years (Row %) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 Three years (Row %) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 3 TOTAL 1 1 5 9 11 4 31 Review • Recommendation: It is recommended the policy states it is subject to review at regular defined periods and by whom it is reviewed. Summary Data availability http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-851566 Contact Laurence Horton E: L.Horton@lse.ac.uk Tw: @laurencedata Orcid: orcid.org/0000-0003-2742-6434  

The road to data sharing is paved with good intentions: looking at institutional research data policies

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online