The DAF at Southampton, by Harry Gibbs


Published on

How the Data Asset Framework (DAF) was used to scope data types in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Southampton. It was given as part of module 1 of a 5-module course on digital preservation tools for repository managers, presented by the JISC KeepIt project. For more on this and other presentations in this course look for the tag 'KeepIt course' in the project blog

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Please use the dd month yyyy format for the date for example 11 January 2008. The main title can be one or two lines long.
  • If using a school logo, make sure that if you have a long page title, it does not encroach on the logo. Allow about 2cm around the logo. Run the page title onto two lines if necessary.
  • Range pictures to the left and place underneath the bullet point text. Range captions to the bottom right hand corner of the picture. The image shown here is 7cm x 5cm.
  • The DAF at Southampton, by Harry Gibbs

    1. 1. The DAF at Southampton Harry Gibbs, Academic Liaison Librarian – Social Sciences 19 th January 2010
    2. 2. Scope <ul><li>School of Social Sciences (contacts & knowledge) </li></ul><ul><li>Data types </li></ul><ul><ul><li>research data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>primary and secondary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>quantitative and qualitative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>electronic and other </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. DAF Team <ul><li>Teresa McGowan, Research Assistant, Social Sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Myself, Social Sciences Librarian </li></ul><ul><li>With advice from… </li></ul><ul><li>Head of Research, School of Social Sciences </li></ul><ul><li>My line manager and Repository Manager </li></ul>
    4. 4. Aims <ul><li>To get an overview of research data holdings in the School </li></ul><ul><li>To find out about data management practices </li></ul><ul><li>To identify datasets for our IR </li></ul>
    5. 5. Scoping: importance of clear objectives… <ul><li>Metadata collection v data management practices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DAF Methodology puts emphasis on metadata forms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>data management proving interesting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>limitaton: researchers’ time </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Projects v time period </li></ul><ul><ul><li>multiple simultaneous projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>infrequent work with data </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Ethics Approval <ul><li>Necessary for all research involving human participants </li></ul><ul><li>Applied less strictly in other institutions? </li></ul><ul><li>Process less (perhaps more) time consuming elsewhere </li></ul><ul><li>Time consuming </li></ul><ul><li>Consent form & information sheet available </li></ul>
    7. 7. Methodology <ul><li>Online questionnaire to all researchers </li></ul><ul><li>Small number of follow-up interviews </li></ul>
    8. 8. Online Questionnaire <ul><li>to gather broad info about research data held </li></ul><ul><li>focused on how that data is managed </li></ul><ul><li>“…would you like someone to contact you about preserving your data…[?]” </li></ul><ul><li>asked for interview volunteers </li></ul><ul><li>tick boxes for speed </li></ul><ul><li>124 researchers </li></ul>
    9. 9. Interviews <ul><li>purposive sample of 6 volunteers (data types and career stage) </li></ul><ul><li>to gather more in-depth info about data management practices </li></ul><ul><li>attempted to complete customised DAF metadata forms </li></ul><ul><li>rigorous approach: recorded and transcribed </li></ul>
    10. 10. Results <ul><li>Online Questionnaire </li></ul><ul><ul><li>47 full responses (38%), 35 with data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>17 interview volunteers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>most 4-6 mins </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>tick box data of limited value </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>open discussion giving rich data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>fascinating insight </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reported internally in report to institution (School & Library) </li></ul>
    11. 11. Lessons Learned (1) <ul><li>Auditor </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantages: experience of research & School contacts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disadvantages: rigorous approach inc. ethics </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Questionnaire design flaw </li></ul><ul><li>Question Mark Perception (BOS & iSurvey) </li></ul><ul><li>Audio formats (quality & readability) </li></ul>
    12. 12. Lessons Learned (2) <ul><li>Questionnaire quick, although data was limited </li></ul><ul><li>Interviews time consuming but very interesting </li></ul><ul><li>Interviewees willing and open </li></ul><ul><li>Questionnaire ideal for finding (willing) volunteers </li></ul><ul><li>Combined methodology efficient </li></ul><ul><li>Timing (Dec 08 – Feb 09) </li></ul><ul><li>Time! </li></ul>
    13. 13. Outcomes <ul><li>Positive responses from School </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness raised in School </li></ul><ul><li>IDMB project plans further DAF work </li></ul><ul><li>Data Support Web Page </li></ul>
    14. 14. <ul><li>More Info </li></ul><ul><li>Southampton Data Survey: our experience and lessons learned </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>- includes consent form, info sheet, questionnaire, interview schedule </li></ul>