12 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
Background
This survey builds upon and extends the findings of
the 2010 report entitled “E-Science and Data Support
Services: A Study of ARL Member Institutions,” au-
thored by Catherine Soehner, Catherine Steeves, and
Jennifer Ward, and sponsored by the ARL E-Science
Working Group.2 In preparing for our survey, we
spoke with the authors of the report to discuss which
aspects of the study went well and which areas would
have benefited from continued investigation. Among
the strengths, the authors specifically noted valuable
responses to inquiries about how organizations began
their efforts, collaborative approaches, educational ef-
forts, pressure points or barriers to entry, and refocus-
ing of professional interests. As key areas to explore
further in our survey, the authors identified semantic
and contextual clarity, more detail of academic and
work backgrounds, ties between data management
and cyberinfrastructure, perceptions of responsibility,
areas of intended investment, and actions which de-
fined success. While we did not have enough space to
address all new questions, we have attempted to incor-
porate many of those points into our survey questions.
We recognize that the absence of new, comprehensive
case studies is a limitation of our study. This may be a
fruitful direction for a next round of inquiry.
One of the areas that we recognized as impor-
tant in building upon the 2010 report was further
refinement of terminology, which may have vary-
ing interpretations or ambiguity among respondents
and more broadly in this field of service. Examples
of such terms include “eScience,” “cyberinfrastruc-
ture,” “data archiving,” and distinguishing research
data management from data services more broadly,
the latter sometimes including institutional records
management. Perhaps the most ambiguous term still
emanating through these conversations is “digital
services.” As the survey results show, in application
this can range from digitization to research support
to intellectual property to repository management.
While we attempted to specify particular meanings
and control response variables for the purpose of a
more systematic analysis, this process and some of
the responses we received highlight the fact that there
is still great variation in maturity and definition of
services throughout the ARL community. Based on
anecdotes, we believe that there is also even broader
variation and understanding of the meaning of these
terms and services beyond the ARL community, such
as with the consumers of the services. Among other
goals, we hope that this type of study may shed some
light on the variations of meaning, and provide some
opportunity for further maturation and convergence
of terminology.
Broad Data Support Services
Seventy-three of the 125 ARL member libraries re-
sponded to the survey. All are academic libraries.
Respondents were asked whether and how long they
have offered 11 broad types of data support services
(Q3). All 73 libraries offer at least one of the listed ser-
vices. Helping researchers locate and use data sources
is the most common and long-established service (68
responses, or 93%). Also common and long-offered
are support for geospatial analysis (61, or 84%), data-
set acquisition (58, or 79%), and copyright and patent
advising (53, or 74%). Sixty-four respondents (88%)
provide an institutional repository 48 for more than
three years. About half of the respondents plan to add
one or more services, particularly data visualization,
data mining, and data analysis.
Research Data Management Services
Respondents were also asked whether they offer re-
search data management services, defined as “pro-
viding information, consulting, training or active
involvement in: data management planning, data
management guidance during research (e.g., advice
on data storage or file security), research documenta-
tion and metadata, research data sharing and cura-
tion (selection, preservation, archiving, citation) of
completed projects and published data” (Q4). Almost
three-quarters do (54, or 74%). Seventeen others plan to
(23%). Only two have no plans to offer RDM services.
One of those two commented, “Rather, no, we wish
we could, but we have no formal plan to do so in the
short term because of lack of resources.” The other
explained that there is little to no demand for such
services.
Background
This survey builds upon and extends the findings of
the 2010 report entitled “E-Science and Data Support
Services: A Study of ARL Member Institutions,” au-
thored by Catherine Soehner, Catherine Steeves, and
Jennifer Ward, and sponsored by the ARL E-Science
Working Group.2 In preparing for our survey, we
spoke with the authors of the report to discuss which
aspects of the study went well and which areas would
have benefited from continued investigation. Among
the strengths, the authors specifically noted valuable
responses to inquiries about how organizations began
their efforts, collaborative approaches, educational ef-
forts, pressure points or barriers to entry, and refocus-
ing of professional interests. As key areas to explore
further in our survey, the authors identified semantic
and contextual clarity, more detail of academic and
work backgrounds, ties between data management
and cyberinfrastructure, perceptions of responsibility,
areas of intended investment, and actions which de-
fined success. While we did not have enough space to
address all new questions, we have attempted to incor-
porate many of those points into our survey questions.
We recognize that the absence of new, comprehensive
case studies is a limitation of our study. This may be a
fruitful direction for a next round of inquiry.
One of the areas that we recognized as impor-
tant in building upon the 2010 report was further
refinement of terminology, which may have vary-
ing interpretations or ambiguity among respondents
and more broadly in this field of service. Examples
of such terms include “eScience,” “cyberinfrastruc-
ture,” “data archiving,” and distinguishing research
data management from data services more broadly,
the latter sometimes including institutional records
management. Perhaps the most ambiguous term still
emanating through these conversations is “digital
services.” As the survey results show, in application
this can range from digitization to research support
to intellectual property to repository management.
While we attempted to specify particular meanings
and control response variables for the purpose of a
more systematic analysis, this process and some of
the responses we received highlight the fact that there
is still great variation in maturity and definition of
services throughout the ARL community. Based on
anecdotes, we believe that there is also even broader
variation and understanding of the meaning of these
terms and services beyond the ARL community, such
as with the consumers of the services. Among other
goals, we hope that this type of study may shed some
light on the variations of meaning, and provide some
opportunity for further maturation and convergence
of terminology.
Broad Data Support Services
Seventy-three of the 125 ARL member libraries re-
sponded to the survey. All are academic libraries.
Respondents were asked whether and how long they
have offered 11 broad types of data support services
(Q3). All 73 libraries offer at least one of the listed ser-
vices. Helping researchers locate and use data sources
is the most common and long-established service (68
responses, or 93%). Also common and long-offered
are support for geospatial analysis (61, or 84%), data-
set acquisition (58, or 79%), and copyright and patent
advising (53, or 74%). Sixty-four respondents (88%)
provide an institutional repository 48 for more than
three years. About half of the respondents plan to add
one or more services, particularly data visualization,
data mining, and data analysis.
Research Data Management Services
Respondents were also asked whether they offer re-
search data management services, defined as “pro-
viding information, consulting, training or active
involvement in: data management planning, data
management guidance during research (e.g., advice
on data storage or file security), research documenta-
tion and metadata, research data sharing and cura-
tion (selection, preservation, archiving, citation) of
completed projects and published data” (Q4). Almost
three-quarters do (54, or 74%). Seventeen others plan to
(23%). Only two have no plans to offer RDM services.
One of those two commented, “Rather, no, we wish
we could, but we have no formal plan to do so in the
short term because of lack of resources.” The other
explained that there is little to no demand for such
services.
