To share or not to share: how researchers handle data

Michael JubbRIN

Fourth Bloomsbury Conference: Valued Resources

24 June 2010

Some definitionsData

‘evidence supporting research and scholarship’DCC Charter and Statement of Principles

‘have no intrinsic meaning until converted into information through some process of analysis, interpretation and description: typically, the process by which experimental data become a research paper’Patterns of information use and exchange:case studies of

researchers in the life sciences, RIN 2009

researchers’ perspectives

skills and training

funder and institutional perspectives and implications

1. Researchers’ perspectives

data and information in the research process: some verbs

gatherevaluatecreateanalysemanagetransformpresentcommunicatedisseminate

But……….

gathering, creating, evaluating data not usually the primary object of research

few career rewards from sharing data

how it’s done in different disciplines varies greatly

big science not the norm

the research process: animal genetics

research process: transgenesis & embryology

research process: epidemiology

research process: neuroscience

why share?

completeness of the scholarly recordvalidation of results

re-use and integrationexploit what’s already been doneavoid duplication of effort ask new research questions

researchers may have different interests as creators and users

creators: motivations and constraints?

evidence of benefitscitation esteem and successful evaluationsfunder requirements altruism/reciprocitycultural/peer pressuresenhanced visibilityopportunities for collaboration, co-authorshipeasy-to-do

no clear benefits/incentivescompetition; resistance to sharing intellectual capitaldesire for/fear of commercial exploitation access restrictions desired or imposed legal, ethical problemslack of time, funds, expertise practical and technical difficulties

So do they do it?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Privately in ow n netw ork Openly w ithin researchcommunity

Publicly on a w ebsite orblog

Degree of sharing

Per

cen

tag

e

No No, but I intend to in future Yes

ownership, protection and trustresponsibility, protectiveness and desire for control over data

concerns about inappropriate use climate change data………..

preference for co-operative arrangements and direct contact with potential usersdecisions on when and how to share

commercial, ethical, legal issues

lack of trust in other researchers’ data“I don’t know if they have done it to the same standards I would have done it”

lack of standardisationintricacies of experimental design and processes

some conclusions……data are primary in the research process, but secondary as research outputs data management, curation and sharing not yet embedded or the norm

genomics, bio-informatics, astronomy etc the exceptions

few career rewards from sharing dataresistance to open sharing of intellectual capital

real differences between researchers working in different disciplines and contextsimpact of funder policies?impact of FoI?

2. Training and skills

“This has been identified in every study as a major problem, both training researchers to be e-researchers, and training the people running

the systems to deal with researchers, and to understand the technology”

Researchers“…a lot of scientists don’t get information and structures at all. It’s not what they’re trained to think about.”“……..the idea of quality, provenance, and metadata about data is woefully inadequate in most science training.” engagement between researchers and data management professionals

“…….now we manage our data, whereas before we didn’t”

issues of scalability in training and support to meet diverse needs of wide range of research groups

Curatorsconcern about low numbers of people with specialist expertisepeople from two kinds of backgrounds

library/information professionals researchers

need for co-ordination of effort and funding for capacity-building

much depends at present on short-term project funding

lack of career structure

“Who’s training these people? We need training at the professional level for people who are actually going to run these data centres”

“….the career structure for those people with expertise is miserable, because the number of places they can work is not large, and the universities don’t treat them as key staff”

“So there’s a real danger of losing people to the private sector”

some conclusions……how to promote cultural change

building capacity and capability among both researchers and information specialistscareer paths and rewards

assessment of national requirement for skills in data curation and support

3. Funder and institutional perspectives and implications

Policy driversincreasing the efficiency of the research process

avoid duplication

promoting scholarly rigour and enhancing research quality

review and testing of dataenhance scope and quality of the scholarly record

enabling researchers to ask new questionsre-use of datadevelopment of ‘data-intensive science’

enhancing visibility of researchopening opportunities for engagement

“increasing the return on public investments in research”

OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data 2007

Research Councils…..BBSRC….. expects research data generated as a result of BBSRC support to be made available with as few restrictions as possible in a timely and responsible manner to the scientific community for subsequent research

recognises that different fields of study will require different approaches expects that timely release would generally be no later than the release through publication of the main findingssupports the view that those enabling sharing should receive full and appropriate recognition by funders, their academic institutions and new users for promoting secondary research

June 2010

Research Councils……. NERC….requires that due consideration be given to the 'post project' stewardship of data prior to approval being given for a projectrequires that recipients of NERC grants offer to deposit with NERC a copy of datasets resulting from the research supported, for research or other public good purposes, but without prejudice to the intellectual property rights ensures that individual scientists, principal investigator teams and participants in programmes will be permitted a reasonable period to work exclusively on, and publish the results of, the data they have collected

Updated Feb 2010

Wellcome Trust…..considers that the benefits gained from research data will be maximised when they are made widely available to the research community as soon as feasible, so that they can be verified, built upon and used to advance knowledge. ….expects the researchers that it funds to maximise the availability of research data with as few restrictions as possible…..believes that data sharing for the benefit of the research community as a whole will only proceed if those using the data also adopt good research practice.…… [and] expects all users of data to acknowledge the sources of their data and abide by the terms and conditions under which they accessed [them].

2007

But do the policies work?

funding and infrastructurecompliance and engagement with researchers

building an infrastructure: leadership and co-ordination?

co-ordination between different funding bodies

Research Councils, Higher Education funding bodies, JISC, universities

clarity about roles and responsibilities

piecemeal initiatives with limited take-up and impact

infrastructure ‘driven by the science’?

need for careful management of relationships between specialists and researchers

disciplinary and institutional dimensions of scale and complexitydangers of “solutions looking for problems”

“….we need a more co-ordinated strategy and real leadership to take things forward.”

“…..it’s very easy in the current framework to pass the buck and do nothing.”

“Things are funded in silos. So I just don’t think there is really a national strategy.”

“…….you have to work pretty hard to demonstrate there’s a business case for reuse of data………there’s no point in paying to curate and store data if nobody ever does use it again.”

top-down and/or bottom-up: a real tension

bottom-up develop policies and local services in response to what researchers themselves wantdevelop tools and environments within universities to equip the research community with appropriate processes and skills

top-downnational policy frameworksnational body/programme to catalyse change required for sustainable and ubiquitous service

Some policy and service implications…….

policies and services need to be informed (but not determined) by an understanding of the views and practices of researchers

different communities and contextssingle, one-size-fits-all approach won’t work

engagement with researchersto identify and address constraintsto preserve exercise of informed choice

pragmatic and experimental policies build on informal sharing already taking placerecognition of mutual needs

practicalities of sharingwhat makes data intelligible and usable?when is sharing useful enough to warrant the labour necessary to achieve it?

address barriers as well as drivers for changeincentives, self-interests and goals of researcherssustaining of intellectual capitalprofessional recognition and reward structures

Some policy and service implications…..

the funding and sustainability challengesharing is not cost-free

co-operation needed between researchers, funders, institutions

complexities of the dual support system

benefits and evidence of valueare the benefits realised in practice?

does making it available mean that it’s used?

scope for publishers to promote sharing?carrots as well as sticks?

Questions?

Michael Jubbwww.rin.ac.uk