SPEC Kit 334: Research Data Management Services · 19
application of appropriate metadata standards (25, or
49%). A second cluster includes digital preservation
(17, or 33%), data ownership policies (16, or 31%), ethical
and legal issues (15, or 29%), and subject domain exper-
tise (15, or 29%). Some respondents also noted the need
for deeper technical skills in related areas such as data
acquisition, wrangling, analysis, interpretation, visu-
alization, and deeper knowledge of research adminis-
tration practices and forces. A few also acknowledged
that their services were not yet developed enough to
know what they would need next.
The survey next looked at the training methods
that libraries have used to develop their RDM staff.
Perhaps predictably, workshop attendance (48 re-
sponses, or 92%), conference attendance (44, or 85%),
independent study (35, or 67%), and training provided
by professional organizations (32, or 62%) rose to the
top.7 With more iSchools and MLIS programs offering
data curation and digital collection emphases, and
other fields of science and information technology
emphasizing training in big data and digital data
support, it will be interesting to follow trends in edu-
cational background of those entering the emerging
library specialty of RDMS.
Funding RDM Services
Many survey respondents identified RDM service
funding as a key challenge. This is not surprising since
all but one library covers the costs through the regular
library budget (Q49). Only a few have received exter-
nal grants or a portion of research project funds. Only
three have tapped endowment funds. Expectations
for additional funding to support RDM services in
the future don’t indicate much change. Slightly more
than half of the respondents to Q61 indicated that ad-
ditional sources of funding have not yet been deter-
mined. The most frequently anticipated future fund-
ing sources are the regular library budget (21, or 36%)
and external grant funding (15, or 26%). Some libraries
expect to tap a temporary or special project budget,
or receive funding from the parent institution. At the
same time, 66% of survey respondents expect the al-
location of funds for RDM services will increase in the
next three years (Q62).
Partnerships
Building RDM services involves collaboration within
the library, across a campus, and sometimes across
institutions. Respondents’ institutional models and
levels of service development have varied widely for
all the components of RDM services discussed thus
far. Similarly, responses about which departments
library RDMS staff refer researchers to reveal wide
diversity in the degree to which these units interact.
Survey respondents most frequently refer researchers
to central IT and research administration, units with
whom they also frequently collaborate on projects
(Q52). Referrals are also directed to IRB and general
counsel, but only a few libraries collaborate with these
departments. A smaller number of respondents both
make referrals to and collaborate with institutional
administration, institutional archives, and other units
ranging from statistical consulting groups to depart-
ment or school IT units.
Although inter-institutional partnerships for ser-
vice provision are happening throughout ARL li-
braries, the number of formal collaborations is still
relatively small. Only 13 respondents (26%) have par-
ticipated in an external partnership (Q53). Several of
these were joint developers of the DMPTool. Other
partnerships center on software and tool develop-
ment, creation of training materials, and research for
service provision.
Conclusion
Given the current technical and political environ-
ment, we (and most other followers of the research
data curation field) predict that the need for universi-
ties to manage their research data for both access and
preservation will grow, due primarily to two factors:
the reliance in many fields of science upon technical
ability to create large and complex digital data, and
the increasing requirements and enforcement of data
sharing policies by research funders. As the results
from this survey show, at least 54 ARL libraries are
responding to this need by providing RDM service
in some capacity, and another 17 have plans to do so
in the next few years. The majority of these libraries
provide service across all three RDM activities: data
application of appropriate metadata standards (25, or
49%). A second cluster includes digital preservation
(17, or 33%), data ownership policies (16, or 31%), ethical
and legal issues (15, or 29%), and subject domain exper-
tise (15, or 29%). Some respondents also noted the need
for deeper technical skills in related areas such as data
acquisition, wrangling, analysis, interpretation, visu-
alization, and deeper knowledge of research adminis-
tration practices and forces. A few also acknowledged
that their services were not yet developed enough to
know what they would need next.
The survey next looked at the training methods
that libraries have used to develop their RDM staff.
Perhaps predictably, workshop attendance (48 re-
sponses, or 92%), conference attendance (44, or 85%),
independent study (35, or 67%), and training provided
by professional organizations (32, or 62%) rose to the
top.7 With more iSchools and MLIS programs offering
data curation and digital collection emphases, and
other fields of science and information technology
emphasizing training in big data and digital data
support, it will be interesting to follow trends in edu-
cational background of those entering the emerging
library specialty of RDMS.
Funding RDM Services
Many survey respondents identified RDM service
funding as a key challenge. This is not surprising since
all but one library covers the costs through the regular
library budget (Q49). Only a few have received exter-
nal grants or a portion of research project funds. Only
three have tapped endowment funds. Expectations
for additional funding to support RDM services in
the future don’t indicate much change. Slightly more
than half of the respondents to Q61 indicated that ad-
ditional sources of funding have not yet been deter-
mined. The most frequently anticipated future fund-
ing sources are the regular library budget (21, or 36%)
and external grant funding (15, or 26%). Some libraries
expect to tap a temporary or special project budget,
or receive funding from the parent institution. At the
same time, 66% of survey respondents expect the al-
location of funds for RDM services will increase in the
next three years (Q62).
Partnerships
Building RDM services involves collaboration within
the library, across a campus, and sometimes across
institutions. Respondents’ institutional models and
levels of service development have varied widely for
all the components of RDM services discussed thus
far. Similarly, responses about which departments
library RDMS staff refer researchers to reveal wide
diversity in the degree to which these units interact.
Survey respondents most frequently refer researchers
to central IT and research administration, units with
whom they also frequently collaborate on projects
(Q52). Referrals are also directed to IRB and general
counsel, but only a few libraries collaborate with these
departments. A smaller number of respondents both
make referrals to and collaborate with institutional
administration, institutional archives, and other units
ranging from statistical consulting groups to depart-
ment or school IT units.
Although inter-institutional partnerships for ser-
vice provision are happening throughout ARL li-
braries, the number of formal collaborations is still
relatively small. Only 13 respondents (26%) have par-
ticipated in an external partnership (Q53). Several of
these were joint developers of the DMPTool. Other
partnerships center on software and tool develop-
ment, creation of training materials, and research for
service provision.
Conclusion
Given the current technical and political environ-
ment, we (and most other followers of the research
data curation field) predict that the need for universi-
ties to manage their research data for both access and
preservation will grow, due primarily to two factors:
the reliance in many fields of science upon technical
ability to create large and complex digital data, and
the increasing requirements and enforcement of data
sharing policies by research funders. As the results
from this survey show, at least 54 ARL libraries are
responding to this need by providing RDM service
in some capacity, and another 17 have plans to do so
in the next few years. The majority of these libraries
provide service across all three RDM activities: data
