The contents of an advisory conversation

Room has arisen to investigate whether and if so, hów 3TU.Datacentrum can support researchers/research groups with data curation. 

In an advisory conversation (consultation) we distinguish1:

- the content of the conversation
- the relationship between advisor and advised
- and the environment (culture, incentives) 

       

Below you find information which may help you get your arguments in a row. With these arguments and the knowledge from module II and III you possess the substantive luggage for succesfully giving advice on data curation. As it were, you have brought your own FAQ. Based on this knowledge you can argue that researchers should store their datasets carefuly for long term preservation and reuse. You can also show them hów to go about with it. In "on conversations" you will learn more about the relationship between you and your customers.  In "barriers" you will get a feeling for other factors influencing whether your advice will be taken to heart and carried out. In the end, an advise will only be succesfull when it actuallly leeds to action from advised parties. 
             

Arguments

In the JISC Incremental project2 misconceptions about data curation were identified in order for them to be debunked: 

  1. Researchers thought that there wouldn't be enough institutional storage for research data so they sought their own solutions (external hard drive, laptop, USB-sticks, online storage) without being fully aware of the risks (safety, backup)
  2. Many researchers saw backup of their research data as being equal to long term preservation  
  3. Researchers weren't sure about dataformats suitable for long term storage
  4. Many researchers organized their data ad hoc: a clear practice for managing their files (naming, version control) was often absent 

Point 1, 2 and 3 can be classified as misconceptions and ignorance. If you inform researchers well, that could be enough for changing the balance. Point 4 can be classified as current practice. Certain behaviour exists. People change when the (alleged) advantages of changing will offset the disadvantages of having to incorporate new behaviour. 

Coarsely, there are two ways you can go about to convince people that behavioural change is in order:  

  • Emphasize disadvantages of current pratices. This image3 is a researcher's worst nightmare: what to do when you loose all your data? The National Digital Stewardship Alliance collects4 these kind of stories. The stories emphasize what you can loose if you do not manage and share your research data in a responsible way.

  • Emphasize benefits which may be achieved when managing and sharing research data responsibly. These arguments are called incentives: stimuli which really get to researcher/research groups

Below you see some arguments you can use in a conversation with a researcher/research group. They are classified by category and are formulated in favour of responsible and sound data management and sharing.
 

  1. It is an obligation. 
    Funders of researcher increasingly demand a data management plan to be part of the research proposal. This also holds true for depositing the underlying research data in a public data repository. 

  2. It saves you time and money
    - You can prevent research which has already been done from being done all over again 
    - When a PhD or other scientific staff leaves the results will nót be lost, garuanteeing continuity

     
  3. It makes science transparant
    - When research data are available in a public data respository, you can meet the requirements of sound scientific research: reliability, reproducibility and validity
    - When data are available the self-correcting ability of science works best 
    - Open data promote the bringing forth of new research, innovation, diversity in research approach. It can also lead to a higher quality of research methods 

  4. It makes your research output retrievable
    -     Consistent file naming conventions and backup practices and high quality documentation corresponding your research data will ensure that you will be able to easily find your data when needed. It also ensures that you will understand the context in which your data were created
    - When you choose to share your data in a public data portal you garantuee that your research output can also be retrieved in the long term 

  5. It makes your research output visible
    - TUDelft has the right to award DOI's to datasets. A DOI increases the visibility and imapct of research. Sharing research data visibly leads to a higher citationscore of corresponding research articles5,6
    - Other researchers can cite your data and use them for doing new research 


Argument 5 might be the most important incentive for researchers. It gives an answer to the rethoric question: "Do you want to increase visibility, citation score and impact of your research?".  Impact is vital for the continued existance of a research subject/research group.

Haven't got enough arguments yet? Take a look at the following reports: 

 

Gamma sciences

The arguments above are mainly targeted at sound data management of research data which will eventually lead to making the data available through open access. In gamma sciences the accent of the provision of services may lie somewhere else. Many scientists in this field use large externally collected and managed datasets. Having access to these data may initially be of more importance than storing their own data in a responsible way. Existing datasets are the starting point of their research. In your conversations with researchers/research groups it is of importance to focus on current needs. Ths could also be enabling access to existing datasets. 
A query within existing datasets may be the starting point for new research. You can advise researchers to store this query and it's results as a dataset. Analyzing and making conclusions about the query takes time. If you would perform the query all over again after a period of time, results may have changed. Apart from focusing on the results of a researcher's queries, you can also focus on the methods and instruments used for collecting the data. This is essential metadata in a research project.  

 

1. Nathans, H. (2011). Adviseren als tweede beroep (3rd edition), Kluwer 
2.Ward, C., Freiman, L., Molloy, L., Jones, S., Snow, K. (2011) Making sense: talking data management with researchers. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(2), 9-17. Retrieved 10-12-2011 from eprints.gla.ac.uk/49201/
3. Why you need a data management plan. (2011). Retrieved 15-12-2011 from http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/08/01/why-you-need-a-data-management-plan/ 
4. National Digital Stewardship Alliance. Request for stories of data loss and/or preservation. (2011). Retrieved 15-12-2011 from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dE54RFprc0duVHg2aXRoUkNNZ0xTeVE6MQ#gid=0
5. Piwowar, H.A., Day, R.S., Fridsma, D.B, (2011). Sharing Detailed Research Data is Associated with Increased Citation Rate. PLoS ONE 2(3): e308. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000308
6. Henneken, E.A., Acomazzi, A. (2011). Linking to Data - Effect on Citation Rates in Astronomy. Retrieved 15-12-2011 from arxiv.org/abs/1111.3618v1
7. Whyte, A., Tedds, J. (2011). Making the Case for Research Data Management. DCC Briefing Papers. Edinburgh: Digital Curation Centre. Retrieved 10-12-2011 from http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/briefing-papers/making-case-rdm
8. Research Information Network. (2011). Data centres, their use, value and impact. Retrieved 10-12-2011 from http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/data-management-and-curation/benefits-research-data-centres
9. JISC. (2011). Benefits from the Infrastructure Projects in the JISC managing research data project. Retrieved 10-12-2011 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/mrd/outputs/benefitsreport.aspx 

Twitter
Loading..