Managing Research Data: a pilot study in Health and Life Sciences

We're working very hard on our dissemination event; the number of bookings has been rising and we're nearly at our maximum. If you are thinking of attending you need to book soon. Programme and registration: http://go.uwe.ac.uk/mrd.

Raising your ReDMan: Approaches to Research Data Management
UWE Bristol on Wednesday 23rd May.

I just wanted to post an update on UWE's maturity modelling work, which we have now benchmarked and summarised on the outputs section of the project website. Specifically, commentary supporting the work is available at Digital Curation Centre (DCC) tools and at Maturity Benchmark and Target Operating Model. The full UWE case-study can be downloaded as a PDF.

We have also produced a Position Statement (not publically available) which has been adopted by the project Steering Group as a way to secure high-level, strategic commitment to a long term RDM strategy here at UWE. The position statement will lead into a more aspirational set of measures to form the basis of an HEI policy / statement of commitment. We are currently planning on applying a layered approach along the lines of the Assessment Reform Group’s 2002 model. In a similar vein to how we’ve approached the DCC work, this incorporates and builds on the Principles approach successfully applied elsewhere in the MRD community in a way which I am confident will work for UWE.

Raising your ReDMan: Approaches to Research Data Management University of the West of England, Bristol
Wednesday 23 May 2012, 11:00 - 16:00
(registration from 10:15)

As part of the JISC Managing Research Data Programme (2011-13), UWE is engaging with HE colleagues in the early phases of developing strategies for managing of research data.

Supported by the University of Lincoln, Northumbria University and the University of Sunderland, we will share our early MRD experiences and explore a variety of approaches being employed across the sector to build the services and infrastructure to support researchers in managing their digital data and to enable future preservation and access.

This free event is hosted by Paul Gough, UWE Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic event, and supported by presentations from JISC and the Digital Curation Centre (DCC).

The day – 11.00 to 16.00 – focuses on: 
 

• the differing approaches to research data management development chosen by institutions
• integrating research data management within the culture and structure of an institution approaches to institutional and stakeholder engagements
• how these methods might be used, or adapted, by similar institutions

The programme and full details are now available at http://go.uwe.ac.uk/mrd and on-line registration is now open. Places for the event are limited.

For queries please contact library.admin@uwe.ac.uk or ring 0117 3282404.

A key element of the UWE project is to share our experience and deliverables with the wider JISC and HE communities. Following the end of phase one of our project the outputs from work packages one and two are now available on the project website; presented as a narrative case study and a seven stage roadmap with links to all available outputs (http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/library/usingthelibrary/servicesforresearchers/datamanagement/managingresearchdata/projectoutputs.aspx). 

The case study summarises our experiences so far, and outlines the key stages in the process that might be adopted or adapted by similar institutions. We're  pleased with our achievements in the time available and would welcome feedback on the presentation and outputs.

Managing Research Data dissemination event Wednesday 23rd May 2012 at UWE Bristol.

The event is principally aimed at post 1992 universities wishing to understand research data management.

In a spirit of openness and  reflecting the JISC programme aims (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/di_researchmanagement/managingresearchdata.aspx), we are keen to disseminate experiences and lessons learned and to assist the development of the necessary skills and expertise in the sector.

The focus of the event will be

•     the differing approaches to research data management development chosen by post 1992 institutions
•     integrating research data management within the culture and structure of a post 1992 institution
•     how these methods might be used, or adapted, by similar institutions

The event will be opened by Paul Gough, UWE’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic and Simon Hodson, JISC RDM programme manager, has agreed to speak.

More details to follow but please reserve this date in your diaries for the moment.

I thought I would follow up on discussions at last week’s policy workshop, where I outlined how we have adapted the mini version of DCC’s CARDIO here at UWE.  

In essence, we have derived a maturity model by extending the mini DCC cardio tool and applying it to the “UWE way”. The result is simply an A3, 2-sided set of statements on a scale against eight key Research Data Management challenges (covering areas such as awareness of risks, funder policy awareness, policies, training, infrastructure, storage, funding, and so on).

By asking people to identify their perception of our current position, and our aspirational position as a university, we have established some tangible as-is and target operating model measures, by stakeholder group where appropriate.   This has currently only been used a little for some early baselining, but we will continue to gather data throughout the life of the project and to refine the direction of travel. As part of the process, we also carefully selected phrases from the project brief so that we have a project trajectory too if we want.   The statements are emotive to engage and, hopefully, virally infiltrate wider discussion. In addition, the statements are re-useable.

This model will form the basis of a Position Statement (a softly-softly entry into policy discussions) and an aspirational, high level Strategy including a vision and principles of commitment.   The model  is not scientific (no weighting even though some middle ground is much further developed than others in statement terms) but does offer a rudimentary benchmarking measure for use with an unlimited range of stakeholders here at UWE.  

Finally, while we have looked at collating the data electronically, we are finding that there is mileage in having a paper version as some stakeholders tend to find this more accessible. We will, none-the-less, be trialling it with PowerPoint Turning Point (voting buttons) over the coming months with some of our senior managers.   In the meantime, we will be updating our website over the coming weeks to include this maturity model, and other outputs to date, which will be encased in something of a narrative UWE case study.   For those of you who haven’t yet looked at the CARDIO quiz, it can be found at http://cardio.dcc.ac.uk/quiz. Aside from its uses in the above context, I found this an incredibly useful opener on my third day in post at the DCC Roadshow in Loughborough!

Following the briefings our questionnaire survey has now been sent to the researchers participating in the pilot. It was developed from the DAF, the Northampton University DAF survey and the findings of the Incremental and MaDAM projects. The questionnaire aims to understand the data held by the researchers, discover the influences and barriers they perceive in managing their research data and establish what guidance and support they use and require to assist them. We will publish the questionnaire once the survey and analysis is complete.

Whilst drafting the questionnaire and in an attempt to understand the complexities of RDM, I developed a mind map of the components or facets which I'd  like to share with readers. It's not perfect or finished and I would welcome any feedback or suggestions for improvement. In particular I'm interested in its usefulness in other contexts. When or in what context do you think it would be helpful? 
It's available on our project website. Apologies for the slight 'smudging' of the image which resulted from the PDF conversion, I used Inspiration mind mapping software originally.

We held 2 briefings last week for the researchers involved in our pilot project. Seven researchers, a research supervisor and a research centre director attended the 2 sessions. The JISC MRD programme, our pilot project, its objectives and anticipated outcomes were explained and we discussed our expectations of their involvement in terms of time and activity. The researchers then briefed us on their projects and some known issues. These include:

• Video and audio data
• Transfer of large video files
• Large and expected rapid increase in volumes of data
• A range of data 'owners'
• Strict ethical guidelines (including Human Tissue act)
• Mixed commercial and research council funding
• NHS compliance and requirements for ethics and data management
• Variety of NHS relationships (sponsor, partner/funder, host)

With such a varied mix we anticipate some interesting times ahead!

I attended a meeting of the south west MRD projects at Bath last week. It was useful to gain an overview of the other projects, explore commonalities and the potential for information sharing. A brief summary of the main topics follows:

Training Concerns expressed over the sustainability and effectiveness of online delivery. Are face to face workshops necessary and who should deliver these in the future? Including support staff in training (library and research support) could be important for sustainability. Timing of PG skills development  felt to be crucial to avoid overloading new PGRs; basic guidance at start followed by specific training as appropriate.

DMPs We discussed the need to identify where the expertise to advise and write DMPs fits in the infrastructure and to provide training for the designated staff. Also where the checks for DMPs sit in the approval process, possibly with compulsory checks e.g.finance. Recognised that integration within a project's normal procedures and processes involves a culture change and could take 4-5 years to enact.

Policy Development a broad institutional policy statement (e.g. Edinburgh) envisaged with specific detail in separate supplemementary documents (which could be discipline specific) and can update more frequently. Edinburgh was referenced as a good example.

Use of tools/methodologies DAF used by Bristol and Exeter, UWE questionnaire based on earlier project findings and DAF. Bath and Bristol using CARDIO (Bristol to establish current practice and requirements gathering).

Repositories Bath and UWE using Eprints, Bristol Drupal, Exeter DSpace. Bristol plan to place repository on top of their RDSF system. Exeter hope to integrate their outputs and data repositories. Problems with uploading and holding large datasets identified by Bristol and Exeter.

Thanks to Jez Cope for arranging and Bath for hosting the meeting.

As of last week, Liz Holliday has joined us as our full time project officer. Liz is already making headway in assessing which elements of previous projects we can re-use here at UWE, and will be out meeting researchers on Friday when she takes our poster to the Centre for Research in Biosciences annual review.

Stella Fowler will be joining us on February 2nd as our project manager, and then our team will finally be running at full strength. I'm sure you can look forward to more frequent postings from then.

So, to benefits and evidence gathering. What seemed fairly straighforward in Nottingham has caused a few furrowed brows here of late. Selecting areas where we would like to be able to demonstrate impact is not too hard, there are loads of candidates there. The problem comes in deciding how to actually measure the impact, and getting something that is workable. This is where we are at currently:

Improved data management plans and policies. At an institutional level, you could argue that any step forward in this area is a measurable benefit, as currently there is no overarching policy. By the end of the project there should be at least a draft institutional policy available. We are thinking of bringing work in this area forward in our project timeline to be closer to having a ratified policy by March 2013. Of course, the real benefits of this are longer term, and will depend on the policy being successfully implemented and accepted.

At a department or project level this could take a bit more legwork. If current practice is that there is little planning or policy in place, then improvements and benefits should be easy to chart. If however there are already plans and policies in place we will need to be able to chart any benefits: the UKDA scoring system might be useful here if it becomes publicly available, or a benchmarking tool to track this over time.

Increasing data management skills.  Is there a way to measure confidence/comptence in researchers' data management skills? We would hope that an initial self assessment would show improvement after use of online guidance and support, once it's available. Also, we would anticipate having data management training included in the Researcher Development Programme here are UWE, and would monitor feedback from that, although the benefits of this would be longer term.

Better knowledge of the research data landscape, meaning a better awareness of how researchers manage their data, and how the university supports researchers in this activity. This should be measureable using a benchmarking tool.

Use of Eprints to support data management activity. I'm not sure that this is a benefit in the strictest sense, but the JISC community might find it helpful to know how we have fared in using Eprints for this purpose. And I'm wondering if there are any other projects who are planning to use Eprints who might like to join us on this somehow?