88 · Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses
Scoping Services
Attitudes and needs of campus researchers for RDM are largely unknown. (also Evaluating demand)
Balancing specialized/project and generalized/services among a great diversity of needs, data formats, etc.
Challenge: defining needs. Measures: faculty survey.
Creating a clear services statement.
Current focus is almost entirely on the active phase of the research, not on long-term preservation and access of data.
No action has been taken on this challenge yet.
Defining and articulating what “data services” we offer, determining roles and responsibilities and situating them, not
only with personnel in the Libraries, but with our colleagues in IT, SPS, and the research office in our collaboration.
Defining and scoping services.
Getting the service off the ground, planning, etc.
Locating, measuring, and evaluating the demand for RDM services. This is an ongoing challenge that will be resolved
through comprehensive engagement and dialogue with researchers, administrators, and technologists. To date, we have
interviewed researchers, discussed RDM issues with researchers, analyzed funding proposal and award data, analyzed
DMPs written by researchers, shared insights with campus IT, and pursued a number of ad hoc information gathering
activities to understand demand. (also Evaluating demand)
Managing expectations. Some faculty, when they hear that the Libraries will help with DMS, then just expect us to do
everything.
Primary challenge pertains to meeting the researcher needs brought about by the changing data management
landscape. Continue to monitor trends, assess service, etc.
Time it takes to develop services. Conducting a comprehensive assessment of researchers’ needs (survey completed,
interviews ongoing, partnerships with other institutional departments/offices under consideration).
Understanding faculty needs as we define the scope of the program, and matching training of staff with local needs.
Staff Roles
Balancing traditional library services with RDM.
Challenges on understanding and accepting roles for data management.
Defining library RDM service roles in relation to other units on campus (e.g., research computing). Measures tried:
Keeping communication between units open and frequent examining how other institutions have defined roles.
Exploring and defining team roles in data management projects that can involve multiple units, such as solutions for
better data management in the research environment (IT as developers, library as curation/preservation resource,
researchers as the client). This is a new venture and will require open communication and collaboration from all. (also
Collaborations campus-wide)
Fully recognize and benefit from existing experience and knowledge of data management that exists within the library.
The library’s RDM Working Group includes members with data management knowledge &experience and members for
whom data management are a relatively new domain. (also Staff training)
Getting outreach librarian supervisors to make RDM a priority.
Scoping Services
Attitudes and needs of campus researchers for RDM are largely unknown. (also Evaluating demand)
Balancing specialized/project and generalized/services among a great diversity of needs, data formats, etc.
Challenge: defining needs. Measures: faculty survey.
Creating a clear services statement.
Current focus is almost entirely on the active phase of the research, not on long-term preservation and access of data.
No action has been taken on this challenge yet.
Defining and articulating what “data services” we offer, determining roles and responsibilities and situating them, not
only with personnel in the Libraries, but with our colleagues in IT, SPS, and the research office in our collaboration.
Defining and scoping services.
Getting the service off the ground, planning, etc.
Locating, measuring, and evaluating the demand for RDM services. This is an ongoing challenge that will be resolved
through comprehensive engagement and dialogue with researchers, administrators, and technologists. To date, we have
interviewed researchers, discussed RDM issues with researchers, analyzed funding proposal and award data, analyzed
DMPs written by researchers, shared insights with campus IT, and pursued a number of ad hoc information gathering
activities to understand demand. (also Evaluating demand)
Managing expectations. Some faculty, when they hear that the Libraries will help with DMS, then just expect us to do
everything.
Primary challenge pertains to meeting the researcher needs brought about by the changing data management
landscape. Continue to monitor trends, assess service, etc.
Time it takes to develop services. Conducting a comprehensive assessment of researchers’ needs (survey completed,
interviews ongoing, partnerships with other institutional departments/offices under consideration).
Understanding faculty needs as we define the scope of the program, and matching training of staff with local needs.
Staff Roles
Balancing traditional library services with RDM.
Challenges on understanding and accepting roles for data management.
Defining library RDM service roles in relation to other units on campus (e.g., research computing). Measures tried:
Keeping communication between units open and frequent examining how other institutions have defined roles.
Exploring and defining team roles in data management projects that can involve multiple units, such as solutions for
better data management in the research environment (IT as developers, library as curation/preservation resource,
researchers as the client). This is a new venture and will require open communication and collaboration from all. (also
Collaborations campus-wide)
Fully recognize and benefit from existing experience and knowledge of data management that exists within the library.
The library’s RDM Working Group includes members with data management knowledge &experience and members for
whom data management are a relatively new domain. (also Staff training)
Getting outreach librarian supervisors to make RDM a priority.
