Research Data Management Service Sustainability Tina Griffin, MLIS. Asst. Professor. University of Illinois Chicago. Chicago, IL 60612 Margaret Janz. Interpreter II. Great Parks of Hamilton County. Cincinnati, OH 54231 Introduction Libraries at high-level research and other academic institutions have been involved in research data management service (RDMS) for more than ten years. As the demand for these services has increased, libraries have adapted their service models. There have been several studies that have reviewed the “state of RDM services,” but these have only provided a snapshot of activities at a given time. Research Data Management activities require support through infrastructure, personnel, time, and money. Previous studies address these topics individually, but there is little connection between RDMS data collected over time and are few longitudinal studies. These studies also do not address the necessary decisions and changes that must have been made to make RDMS sustainable over time. This study will attempt to fill that gap by updating the RDMS status to describe the current baseline, broadening the facets addressed so that details about sustainability can be highlighted, and presenting the data by cohort to help other institutions identify parallels to their RDMS. Methodology • A 62-question survey was distributed in the fall of 2020 for 6 weeks through data listservs and message boards (DataCure Google Group, Research Data Access and Preservation discussion forum, International Association for Social Science Information Service and Technology listserv, Digital Library Federation listserv, Research Data Alliance forums). Two reminders were sent, one at 3 weeks and one the day before close. • Questions asked about changes in service model, staffing and funding, accountability, and planning for research data management services since service inception. • The survey was reviewed by eight data librarians currently in the field, and edited for bias, errors, and clarity. A copy of he survey instrument can be downloaded here: https://go.library.uic.edu/RDMSUSurveyInstrument. • IRB at both authors’ institutions reviewed the protocol and it was determined to be exempt. • The survey data was collected via Qualtrics Survey Software (Qualtrics, LLC. Provo, UT, USA. https://www.qualtrics.com/). • Received 118 responses. 70 responses were analyzed, including 32 which were partially complete. • Responses were excluded if: • did not contain any data (21) • only answered the question regarding service duration (9) • services were offered less than one year (16) • did not consent (2) • Personally identifying and some institutional demographic information was deleted before analysis, as per the informed consent agreement. Selected Results – Respondent Characteristics 13 14 31 12 1-3Y 3-5Y 5-10Y 10+Y Number of Respondents by Years offering RDMS 12 10 5 34 >7M 8-25M 25-50M unsure Respondents Library budget (Millions) Selected Results – Service profile Almost all respondents indicated that they have increased both technical and advisory services over time. Among all groups, the number of services offered ranged from two to fifteen. The average number of services offered from 1-3Y was 6.5, from 3- 5Y was about 10, cohort 5-10Y or 10+Y offered just under 8 each. Cohorts differ as to which services they offer. Number of Respondents offering RDS by Service level and cohort. Technical Only Advisory Only Both 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 4 6 5 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 Deidentification Analysis Offer resources Visualization Metadata Purchase Documentation Curation Preservation Citation Storage Finding Data Sharing Education/trai… Planning 1-3Y 2 1 1 1 4 2 6 8 6 4 8 2 9 8 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 5 2 6 2 3 9 Deidentification Analysis Offer resources Visualization Metadata Purchase Documentation Curation Preservation Citation Storage Finding Data Sharing Education/traini… Planning 3-5Y 1 4 4 6 7 7 4 10 11 6 14 13 13 11 11 2 1 1 5 2 4 2 4 9 1