Rsquared: researching the researchers. A study into how the researchers at the University of New South Wales use and share research data

Research data management in libraries in the past focused on the published output at the end of the research cycle. We are now of the age of data driven scholarship. E-scholarship (not just e-science) is predicated on data organisation, management, use and reuse. We now need to become more involved with the management (describing and making accessible) of research data itself. To support our researchers we must understand what services are needed to support e-research. This paper presents a research study of data usage, creation and sharing within different research communities at UNSW. The study identifies emerging data usage and management needs within the e-research life cycle of diverse research communities. Comparison is made with the outcomes of other studies that have examined e-researcher work practices in relation to their data. The paper examines the findings to understand what role researchers see libraries having, and discusses the development of a framework that libraries can use to support the curation and management of data and the development of tools and library support services that can be used across disciplines. The study addressed the following: What are the existing data use, storage and sharing practices of academics at UNSW? What are the differences and similarities between disciplines and fields of research? What are the differences between project types (e.g. multidisciplinary, cross institutional)? Using a mixed-methods research design, data from focus groups was used to construct an online survey followed by interviews with selected survey participants to extend and provide indepth understandings of data from the survey. The study was carried out by the Library Repository Services unit (LRS) which was established in 2007. Initially charged with designing and building the UNSW institutional repository, LRS now leads the Library’s research data management services and contributes to the University’s e-research coordinating group. LRS services support the library as a partner and collaborator in the e-research space where the description, management, use and reuse of data in all its forms (primary, secondary, interpreted, analysed and published) is provided. Introduction The University of New South Wales Library established the Library Repository Service (LRS) in 2007. Initially the focus was on building and managing an institutional repository as part of the ARROW partnership (www.arrow.edu.au) and in response to initiatives from the Australian Federal Government, which have resulted in new data gathering requirements to report on research activity. As the team became established it became apparent that the services the LRS team provided needed to extend to data librarianship to directly support researchers. In the past research data management in libraries has focused on the published output end of the data spectrum, yet repositories are about facilitating the use and reuse of material in many contexts [Amos & Ruthven 2008]. We now need to become more involved in the management, describing and accessibility of primary research data. The literature at the time [Gibbs 2007, Gold 2007, Heery & Powell 2006] saw institutional repositories as logical places for storage of research datasets. As data stores, work was being carried out to assess the role of institutional repositories in management of research data assets and the roles of libraries and librarians in the provision of data services. The UNSW repository team also became involved in this work in support of research projects, establishing research infrastructure projects in 2008 and 2009. LRS services are not IT infrastructure services. We don’t provide raw storage facilities, back up, archiving and preservation services (except as for curation – we may assist with describing for preservation). We see our role as assisting with schema selection (if called upon), developing cross walks to standard schema and quality assurance on marking up data and describing for discovery and reuse. So what are the services required from the UNSW “digital library” or more specifically from the Library Repository Service that we have established? The US Interagency Working Group for Digital Data (IWGDD) formed under the auspices of the NSTC Committee for Science found that new specialisations in data tools, infrastructures, sciences and management are emerging to support the use and reuse of research data [IWGDD 2009]. How does LRS support the establishment/process of “library as partner/collaborative research space” – i.e. where is the description/management/use and reuse of data in all forms provided, from primary, secondary, interpreted/analysed to published? How do we mitigate the risk that if we build it they may not come? Do we restrict ourselves to services for specific research projects – but will this allow us to build “library as partner/collaborator”? Are there commonalities that may be exploited to provide cross disciplinary and inter-project services? Economic realities dictate that LRS services must be generic enough to encompass research repository services across a spectrum of research projects across all disciplines. It seemed logical to ask the researchers what their needs are [Gibbs 2009, Granada et al. 2009]. What emerging needs or usage trends of higher degree by research candidates and early career researchers will we need to support? What role do they see us having in their eresearch data life? What metadata are our researchers using, and what criteria do they consider important to select metadata schemas. What are the existing data use and sharing practices of researchers at UNSW? What are the differences and similarities between disciplines and fields of research? To answer these questions we conducted this study, the aim of which was to gain an understanding of changing needs in data use, creation and sharing within different research communities at UNSW. If we are to help researchers identify metadata schemas we need to have a robust understanding of the scope of what they need to describe. Findings from the Social Science Research Material, a database of research material collected in the National Centre in HIV Social Research at UNSW migrated to a repository to maximise interoperability with a national social science data store, and includes research proposals, project descriptions and research instruments from qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies. See Frances & Croucher [2009]. Human Resources for Health Knowledge Hub Electronic Gateway, a joint initiative of LRS and the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at UNSW, is a repository for document and other file storage, with a wiki and a blog that enables discussion on developing resources. Membranes Research Environment , jointly developed by LRS and the UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology at UNSW, combines a repository with wiki database technology to capture publications and data from all stages of the membrane materials research lifecycle. See Carusi & Reimer, [2010]; Cox et al., [2009] study will assist us to develop the library framework, tools and services relating to data curation and management support. Data use and sharing: a review of the literature Recent studies and reports on data use and sharing tend to focus on the data lifecycle and, naturally, are data-centric rather than based on research practices. Some of the studies and reports touch on the practices and workflows of researchers. A few have examined particular aspects in-depth. Yet, significantly, the question posed by Lyon in 2007 remains valid: “How much do we know about individual researchers’ practice regarding data creation and capture, data management, curation, preservation, data publication and reuse? The answer is not enough” [Lyon 2007]. The data-centric studies and reports use one of two data lifecycle models. The Digital Curation Centre (DCC http://www.dcc.ac.uk/) Curation Lifecycle Model that places data in the centre surrounded by aspects of curation and preservation, and the IWGDD model that centres on Culture, Use & Reuse and Strategy surrounded by aspects of technical requirements, skills, organisations and entities, and policy. This approach has informed examinations of large research projects [Wallis et al. 2008, Pepe et al. 2009] Using these data lifecycle models, the roles and responsibilities of people and organisations have been examined. Much of this work comments on organisational roles [Lyon 2007] or roles for a particular aspect [Gold 2007]. Specific parts of the lifecycle have also been examined and well documented such as best practice principles for metadata creation to enhance discoverability [Dinkelmann et al. 2009]. Significant sectoral and national reports have provided directions on policy and infrastructure requirements for research data. The Harnessing the power of digital data for science and society report [IWGDD 2009] made recommendations on infrastructure and national services for the US Government. The recommendations of the UK JISC Strategy 2010-2012 Initial Draft [JISC 2009] focused on investment in research, business systems, and national services. The Australian federal government’s Final Investment Plan for Research Capability for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy [NCRIS 2006] recommended the establishment of the Australian National Data Service (ANDS) with goals in data management, curation and collecting research resources. A JISC-funded guide [Green 2009] provided well documented advice to institutions on digital data repository planning. Broad surveys have been conducted to give high level information about frequency of practices by researchers in data use. [Markauskaite et al. 2009, Maron 2008]. Other studies and reports touch on the practices and workflows of researchers. The IWGDD report had a section on Personal Digital Collections [IWGDD 2009]. The CLADDIER Project in the UK found