20 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
management plans for grants, guidance on data man-
agement, and research data archiving. Half draw on
staff from different departments within the library to
deliver these services.
A common theme throughout the survey is the
recognition that, in order to provide comprehensive
RDM services and to support scientists throughout
the data lifecycle, libraries need to collaborate, either
formally or informally, with other units at the in-
stitution. This is true even where the library has a
dedicated department for RDM. At the very least,
these units will then be aware of the services the li-
brary offers and can refer researchers to them (e.g.,
research administrators can send proposal writers
to the library for data management plans). Forming
these partnerships is listed as the biggest challenge
by respondents, and in some cases has led to uncer-
tain roles at the institution-level over which units
have primacy over RDM. With so many aspects of
RDM services overlapping domains and defining
new territories of collaboration among multiple units
within an institution, it will be interesting to follow
how libraries continue to position their roles within
the school as such services expand, and how unified
or diverse an approach an institution may choose to
take overall in supporting research data management.
It costs money to provide quality services. RDMS
requires a diverse range of skills, many outside the
typical expertise of library staff and not all libraries
can afford to hire new and/or retrain staff. Creating
archiving infrastructure and curating research data
are also expensive endeavors. Right now, the amount
of archived data is relatively small for the majority of
institutions however, as funders become more strin-
gent in data retention and sharing requirements, li-
braries will need to employ an alternative funding
model, such as through fees to researchers or their
grant projects.
Finally, the third biggest challenge reported is
faculty (non)engagement due to a lack of awareness
of services that the library provides, low perceived
value of services, and resistance to data sharing.
Respondents stated that the most effective marketing
techniques were through workshops and presentation
to researchers, referrals from research project (grants)
administration, and direct emails to researchers (Q50).
The low perceived value of services is a more difficult
issue to overcome. Some researchers do not view the
library as a resource for data management, and as one
respondent commented, “preservation and data shar-
ing are a hard sell when the researcher only need[s]
to write a plan.” Also, some respondents noted that
funders are not taking mandates seriously, giving the
researcher a low incentive to care about data manage-
ment and sharing. As noted, the push for open data
access for publicly funded research and compliance
for data sharing policies, both in North America and
around the world, may change the environment sig-
nificantly. Our survey results suggest that many ARL
libraries have at least a start toward growing services
to meet an increasing demand.
This survey provides a snapshot of what RDM ac-
tivities ARL libraries are currently involved in, what
human resources are being used to provide these
services, and projected service provision. Although
providing RDM services is not easy and requires a
heavy investment in hiring/retraining staff, building
technical infrastructure, and continually reaching
out to and collaborating with other data manage-
ment players on campus, many respondents felt that
library could and should support RDM activities to
some degree (Q66). Although RMD services are rela-
tively new, institutions are taking diverse approaches
to providing them, and will likely evolve over the
next few years. The exact nature of how service will
be provided will likely depend on institutional and
funder policy, technical skills of library staff, and the
financial position of a library.
Limitations of Survey
The survey responses clearly show that RDM services
do not happen just in the library. They require pan-
institutional collaboration. One major limitation of this
survey is the absence of responses from those outside
the library. If RDM services go beyond the library but
are unknown by the library, the answers in this survey
may not be a complete picture of the institutions’ RDM
services. One particular library commented: “We don’t
know the answers to any of these and don’t want to
speak for other units.”
The survey underwent review and testing before
it was sent out. We adjusted many definitions and
Previous Page Next Page