• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
UVa Library Scientific Data Consulting Group (SciDaC):  New Partnerships and Services to Support Scientific Data in the Library
 

UVa Library Scientific Data Consulting Group (SciDaC): New Partnerships and Services to Support Scientific Data in the Library

on

  • 962 views

A. Sallans. "UVa Library Scientific Data Consulting Group (SciDaC): New Partnerships and Services to Support Scientific Data in the Library." Presented at the 2011 International Association for ...

A. Sallans. "UVa Library Scientific Data Consulting Group (SciDaC): New Partnerships and Services to Support Scientific Data in the Library." Presented at the 2011 International Association for Social Science Information Services and Technology.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
962
Views on SlideShare
961
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    UVa Library Scientific Data Consulting Group (SciDaC):  New Partnerships and Services to Support Scientific Data in the Library UVa Library Scientific Data Consulting Group (SciDaC): New Partnerships and Services to Support Scientific Data in the Library Presentation Transcript

    • UVA LIBRARY SCIENTIFIC DATACONSULTING GROUP (SCIDAC):NEW PARTNERSHIPS AND SERVICES TOSUPPORT SCIENTIFIC DATA IN THE LIBRARY Andrew Sallans Head of Strategic Data Initiatives Sherry Lake Senior Scientific Data Consultant IASSIST 2011 1 June 2011
    • OUTLINE Phase 1 – Research Computing Lab Phase 2 – Scientific Data Consulting Group 1. Data assessment interviews 2. Data management planning 3. Integration of processes with IR Partnerships  Internal  External Challenges Future opportunities 2
    • BACKGROUND ON THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA  “Mr. Jefferson’s University”  Size  About 14,000 undergraduate students  About 6,000 graduate students  About 2,000 faculty  Annual research dollars – FY10 $375 million  DE (Ed) - $10 million  DOE- $10 million  DOD- $15 million  NSF - $29 million 3  DHHS - $197 million
    • 4Source: “Mens Lacrosse NCAA CHAMPS! (by Matt Riley) 5/31/2011” photo gallery, http://www.virginiasports.com/
    • PHASE 1: RESEARCH COMPUTING LAB Began planning in 2005. Central IT: seeking greater visibility. Library: seeking new ways to support scientific research. Collocation provided mutual benefits. Staff combined in 2006, moved to Library locations (Research Computing Lab & Scholars’ Lab), setup new service points and services. 5
    • RESEARCH COMPUTING LAB RESPONSE Aiming to provide support across the entire scientific research data lifecycle Staff with expertise in:  Data  Quantitative data, statistics  Modeling, visualization  Scientific publishing Emphasis on consulting, not drop-off services Partnership with traditional librarians to help ease transition to new support models 6
    • SAMPLE RCL CONSULTATIONS STS Undergrad Environmental Justice (2008)  Development of technology solutions for empowering the citizen scientist  Web 2.0 tools, data collection/management  Data analysis Economics Graduate Student (2008/2009)  Airline flight price modeling  Screen scraping, data collection/management  Data analysis Mountain Lake Beetle Project (2009)  Mobile data acquisition/collection solution  Database development/management, programming  Data analysis Archiving of dissertation data (2009)  EVSC student, ModelMaker 4.0 data  Biology student, IDL, Matlab, R code 7
    • TAKE-AWAYS This is the future Heavily growing space, lots of opportunity Requires big investment and commitment, the biggest being training and priority alignment Libraries and institutions need to make decisions on what to do and what not to do It’s a culture change for both libraries, institutions, and researchers 8
    • PHASE 2 - SCIENTIFIC DATA CONSULTINGGROUP  December 2009/January 2010: rethinking the model  Budgetary pressures  Changes in organizational priorities  Emerging demands in research community  Spring 2010: decision to focus on data  May 2010: close of RCL, start of SciDaC 9
    • WHAT’S HOT IN 2010? Open data: growing governmental interest in making publicly-funded research more transparent and more available (NIH, NSF) Broader critical review: greater interest evaluating original research data (Nature) Technological advances: sharing of research results easier and faster (Repositories, Web 2.0) Reuse/preservation of research data: increased consideration of the cost and value of research data and need to ensure its longevity 10
    • “SCIENTISTS SEEKING NSF FUNDING WILL SOON BEREQUIRED TO SUBMIT DATA MANAGEMENT PLANS”Press Release 10-077, May 5, 2010 Current Policy: o “To advance science by encouraging data sharing among researchers” o Data obtained with federal funds be accessible to the general public o Grantees must develop and submit specific plans to share materials collected with NSF support, except where this is inappropriate or impossible On or around October 2010: o All new NSF proposals will be required to include a data management plan in the form of a 2 pg supplementary document (peer reviewed) o New policy is meant to be a 1st step toward a more comprehensive approach to data management o Exact requirements vague 11
    • THE CHALLENGE FOR INSTITUTIONSData is expensive Time, instrumentation, inability to reproduceIncreasing regulation Granting agencies and journals require submissionInadequate training No formal data management curriculumPreservation is not a priority For most researchers, preservation takes time away from the work that is rewarded (publication, teaching) 12
    • SO…WHO’S GOING TO TAKE THIS ON? Researchers? VPR? CIO? OSP? UL? 13
    • WHY THE LIBRARY? Neutral: works across the entire institution Strong in relationship building: has experience fostering discussion and relationships, and cultivates an existing support network Intellectual Property experts: has dealt with copyright, can translate to data Service-oriented: uniquely positioned as an intellectual service unit within the institution 14
    • GETTING STARTED… Take what we learned in the RCL experience and apply it to the focused demands around dataSteps: Conduct a stakeholder analysis Make a short term plan (12 months) Develop clear priorities Refine and standardize consulting methods Communicate heavily 15
    • STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS (ABBREVIATED)Internal External Researchers  Funding agencies Graduate Students  Broader research Grant Administrators community Deans  “The Public” VP/CIO VPR OSP UL 16
    • SHORT TERM PLAN Survey OSP to match grant holders with regulations Educate/engage subject librarians Build political awareness/support Build partnerships with local/national/international groupsResource requests: Staffing commitment Travel/partnership support 17 Promotion of initiative to institution
    • CLEAR PRIORITIES1. Data interviews/assessments2. Response to NSF Data Management Plan (DMP) Mandate3. Leadership on data for the Institutional Repository (IR) 18
    • CONSULTING ACTIVITIES Interviews/assessments Data management planning templates LOTS of documentation Constant and continuous refinement of process Focus on helping researchers improve process 19
    • COMMUNICATE HEAVILY Internal  Inform staff of processes, priorities, and progress  Keep stakeholders engaged  Reach the consumers from many angles External  Discuss and share experiences with colleagues at other institutions  Create partnerships to share, build upon resources and experiences, collaborate on tools  Networking (Twitter, LinkedIn, listserves, conference calls, conference presentations) Bottom line: this is a big culture shift, and you do have to 20 say the same thing many times in different ways
    • PRIORITY 1 – DATA ASSESSMENT INTERVIEWS Initially a means of growing awareness of consulting service and doing assessment, now a means of establishing a baseline for research data management practices with any new “client” Protocol involves:  60 minute interview discussion (researcher / SciDaC consultants / subject librarian)  Development of a report  SciDaC consultants give researchers recommendations to improve data management  SciDaC consultants work with researchers to implement recommended solutions Approach has proven to be very effective thus far 21
    • PRIORITY 2 – DATA MANAGEMENTPLANNING Highest priority of responding to and addressing support needs for funding agency requirements (ie. NSF, others) Getting a handle on data management as a means of institutional risk management Coordination of effort across institution 22
    • NSF DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN MANDATE Official mandate became active Jan. 18, 2011 New NSF Directorates/Divisions continue to release and specify guidelines (examples below)  Education and Human Resources (EHR)  Engineering (ENG)  Geological Sciences (GEO)  Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)  Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) Researchers continue to be mostly unaware of the mandate and how to prepare a DMP 23
    • UVA SCIDAC NSF DMP RESPONSEUVa Library’s Original Request Develop boilerplate for researchers to use in proposalsSciDaC Group’s Response No boilerplate, successful proposals need customized plans Our approach involves:  Knowledge across many communities (“translational” opportunities)  Leadership on policy/infrastructure development  Development of a template that simplifies writing the planPrinciples Must be easy for researcher Must be supportable by available UVA resources/infrastructure Must be able to be followed-through on if grant is awarded 24
    • PRIORITY 3 – INTEGRATION WITH IR Institutional repository “Libra” (http://libra.virginia.edu)  Built upon Hydra architecture  Three components: open access publications, data, and electronic theses/dissertations Working on figuring out storage and cost models to support management of big and small data from across institution’s research community Will provide preservation assurance for data in form of “blobs” or packages (bit preservation, no format migration) Currently in process of developing user interface/ingestion prototype that addresses needs of small data for release in late July 2011 25
    • COLLABORATIONS Internal  Library / VPR / CIO / OSP  Institutional Repository Team  Kuali Coeus team External  DMP Tool  DataONE  Conference/professional networks 26
    • 27
    • CHALLENGES Involving subject librarians? Gaining institutional buy-in? Meeting demand? 28
    • HOW TO INVOLVE SUBJECT LIBRARIANS?UVa Library Staff Model Scientific Data Consultants Subject LibrariansCurrent Training Model Brown Bag Data Curation Discussions Data InterviewsGoals and Objectives Build Data Literacy Create Collaborative Opportunities Establish the Library for Data Preservation 29
    • HOW TO GAIN INSTITUTIONAL BUY-IN? Regulations are helpful Partnerships between key stakeholders:  University libraries (UL)  Central IT (CIO)  Research Office (VP for Research)  Sponsored Programs/Research Strategic investment: take ownership, allocate resources, and demonstrate capability 30
    • HOW TO MEET DEMAND? Time: how to best manage staff time  NSF research support alone is going to be very time consuming (UVA had about 140 proposals over the past year, 44 in November alone) Funding: work with leaders to find money  Redirection/reallocation of grant overhead dollars  Write-in of library staff on grants Strategy: decide how to invest  How might units be reorganized?  How do we expand to other disciplines?  How could staff resources and expertise be refocused?  What additional partnerships would add value? 31
    • FUTURE DIRECTIONS Addressing data management needs of other disciplines across the institution Integration into formal research proposal process Broader data management education Increased funded research project consulting Technology consulting Expansion of virtual organization partners and creation of research advisory board Guiding of policy revision to address new interests in data management and preservation 32
    • THANK YOU!Andrew SallansHead of Strategic Data Initiatives, SciDaC GroupUniversity of Virginia LibraryEmail: als9q@virginia.eduTwitter: asallanshttp://www.lib.virginia.edu/brown/data 33