Research Information Management - OCLC Research overview

947 views
873 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
947
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This is a three part presentation. Two are quite brief and we hope the third is quite substantial. As we talk, I hope you’ll jot things down on the paper we provided: When something comes up that would be very useful to your institution, make a note of it (or even things you think of, but don’t say) Also indicate if you, or a particular staff member, would be willing to help think it through <not required>
  • We hope that these two questions will underpin our discussions [We also consider where OCLC Research has standing and whether the activity plays to the strengths of OCLC Research staff.]
  • The first part of the three part presentation is mostly about you
  • The RIM program got its start at the 2008 RLG Partnership Meeting We reported on a paper we commissioned by Carole Palmer and colleagues at UIUC that synthesized the literature on disciplinary research behaviors. We went around the room to hear from each person the challenges they were facing. We made a brief wish list to kickstart our work And we formed a RIM interest group to further prioritize the work
  • Significantly, we agreed we needed to let go of the ‘library-centric’ mindset that built the IRs and adopt a ‘user-centric’ approach to address research needs. John MacColl conceived this visual to underscore the relevance of the library – which doesn’t appear on the chart.
  • On to the second part. Let’s talk about where we’ve been -- Oh, this part is also about you
  • Several working groups were formed around the priorities determined by the RIM interest group. These are the institutions that had representation on one or more of the RIM working groups or advisory groups. Many others followed from the sidelines. Some of the working groups took items from the wish list and ran with them.
  • Interest in the exploration of institutional reputation resulted in a 5 country study and two reports The urge to profile a suite of services that could be built around research workflow and output resulted in a manifesto itemizing ways to improve research support; And two studies, one in the US and one in the UK, investigating what tools and services researchers use and need; and a synthesis of the US and UK reports. There has been some additional activity in the areas of research dissemination data curation expertise profiling, and researcher name disambiguation -- without finding much traction (yet) Which leads us to
  • The third part. Which is all about you, because this is your chance to shape the RIM agenda going forward . First of all I should say that sometimes we muse about the vagueness of the phrase Research Information Management. 1) Who is doing the management? Some assume it is the researcher, managing the data collected and created in the course of research Others assume it is the library, managing the information resources that researchers need and managing outputs of research And yet others assume it is the university, managing the information needed and produced by the many offices and departments that support research. 2) Another good question is who is the intended or likely user of the information? (the current researcher or a future researcher? Other university departments? Funders? …) Sometimes vagueness is good; it has allowed us to pursue multiple threads. But we might now ask where our focus should be going forward.
  • We’re looking at possible activities in three main areas: --Libraries supporting academia by assisting researchers with their information management, focusing on the processes of the researcher -- and extending support services and resources beyond the walls of the institution. --The intersection between the library as a service department and other campus service departments (e.g., office of sponsored research, output reporting units) -- to support the management of research itself and for compiling information about the university’s research output. --and possible OCLC services to support academic libraries and the academy – providing services that help libraries fulfill their missions and services directly to academia (or to others providing services to academia)  
  • Jen will facilitate the discussion. <click to next slide>
  • And keep these two questions in mind. <Stay on this slide through the discussion.>
  • One project that we plan to take forward, but on which we need your input, is about disciplinary hubs. This relates to the provision of services that support researchers in a particular discipline. These services may or may not be provided by libraries, may or may not be provided by universities, and definitely cross institutional and often national borders.   This begins as a think-piece to understand the lie of the land. We begin with a distinction between an Institutional Repository and a Disciplinary Repository -- both include published research outcomes, but: The IR attempts to meet the institution’s needs for research output assessment and preservation and a DR addresses the researchers’ needs. An IR is Vertical – combines all subjects within an institution A DR is Horizontal – unifies a subject across institutions The IR lacks momentum. A DR has more gravitational pull for researchers. A DR may be supported by a grant, supported by the government, may be commercially provided, or may be supported by a single institution. The NSF-funded DataNet projects will do much for the sciences, government support will align with political interests like defense and environment, and commercial entities will gravitate to economically viable fields – it may be left to universities to support other disciplines. A Disciplinary Hub is an enhanced DR. A DH goes beyond being a repository for published research outcomes and may include support for identifying collaborators, identifying grants, proposal writing, reputation management, expertise profiling, social networking, and data set curation.
  • There are a number of questions to pursue: What are good examples?  What role do mandates play?  Data management planning tools and approaches may be an area for attention as even IMLS begin to require them. This exploration may have a data set curation component. Is there a role for library subject liaisons?  Data Librarians? Embedded librarians? What is the relationship between IRs and DRs? Could university staff help to put content in IRs and then ensure that it appears in the DH(s) that matters to the researcher? Or should IRs harvest content from the DHs? [Outside of US, the IRs are more central, so they can be the source that feed the DRs. In the US, we may need to treat the DRs as the source from which the IR harvests.] What are successful sustainability plans? Is there a possibility of extending the ICPSR model? Is the idea of a HathiTrust-like model for datasets feasible? It is unlikely that every campus could support the needs of every field, with widely varying requirements. How can the case be made for a patchwork of disciplinary hubs located on various campuses? Will campuses take responsibility for areas in which they excel and defer to hubs on other campuses in other fields? Might a Disciplinary Hub provide return on investment to the university by establishing a center of excellence that would attract and retain students, faculty, and researchers?
  • The first bit of work we’ll do is to be sure we’re aware of significant work that has already been done in this area. The next activity might be to identify exemplars of disciplinary hubs (as well as some that have failed). Case studies could characterize what works and what doesn’t, describing their existing ecosystems, and forming the basis for an examination of various models for sustainability.
  • Research Information Management - OCLC Research overview

    1. 1. Ricky Erway Jennifer Schaffner Program Officers OCLC Research Library Partnership Research Information Management Futurecast Washington DC 8 June 2011
    2. 2. The two guiding questions <ul><li>What is most needed by our partners ? </li></ul><ul><li>What lends itself to collaborative attention? </li></ul>
    3. 3. Research Information Management Where we’ve come from
    4. 4. 2008 RLG Partnership Meeting
    5. 5. The Researcher’s Universe User Domain Institution Data Environment A&I, peer-reviewed journals, search engines, disciplinary repositories, social networks, datasets, databases, e-text centers… Self-assessment Funding-based assessment Tenure-based assessment Comfort zone Collaboration Competition Assessment Regime Scholarly communication Institutional reputation Public relations Grant funding Name identifiers Expertise profiling
    6. 6. Research Information Management Where we’ve been
    7. 7. RIM Working groups <ul><li>Binghamton University, SUNY </li></ul><ul><li>Brigham Young University </li></ul><ul><li>California Digital Library </li></ul><ul><li>Columbia University </li></ul><ul><li>Emory University </li></ul><ul><li>Oregon State University </li></ul><ul><li>Rice University </li></ul><ul><li>Rutgers University </li></ul><ul><li>Stanford University </li></ul><ul><li>The New School </li></ul><ul><li>Trinity College Dublin </li></ul><ul><li>University of Alberta </li></ul><ul><li>University of California, Berkeley </li></ul><ul><li>University of Cambridge </li></ul><ul><li>University of Chicago </li></ul><ul><li>University of Edinburgh </li></ul><ul><li>University of Glasgow </li></ul><ul><li>University of Leeds </li></ul><ul><li>University of Melbourne </li></ul><ul><li>University of Minnesota </li></ul><ul><li>University of Oxford </li></ul><ul><li>University of Pennsylvania </li></ul><ul><li>University of Sydney </li></ul><ul><li>University of Warwick </li></ul>
    8. 8. Outcomes to date <ul><li>Institutional reputation assessment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparative Review of Research Assessment Regimes in Five Countries and the Role of Libraries in the Research Assessment Process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research Assessment and the Role of the Library </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Research support </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for the Research Process: An Academic Library Manifesto </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A Slice of Research Life: Information Support for Research in the United States. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research Support Services in UK Universities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supporting Research: Environments, Administration and Libraries </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Research Information Management What comes next?
    10. 10. Looking forward <ul><li>Library support for academia </li></ul><ul><li>Support for researchers on campus </li></ul><ul><li>Services that support academia writ large </li></ul><ul><li>Intersection between library and other campus service departments </li></ul><ul><li>Managing research </li></ul><ul><li>Assembling research output </li></ul><ul><li>OCLC support for libraries and academia </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul>
    11. 11. Possible areas of investigation <Your ideas go here>
    12. 12. In all that we do … <ul><li>… We are guided by two questions: </li></ul><ul><li>What is most needed by our partners ? </li></ul><ul><li>What lends itself to collaborative attention? </li></ul>
    13. 13. Thank You!
    14. 14. Disciplinary Repositories and Hubs <ul><li>Institutional </li></ul><ul><li>IR is about research output assessment and preservation </li></ul><ul><li>Vertical </li></ul><ul><li>Often is met with indifference </li></ul><ul><li>Has institutional support </li></ul><ul><li>Disciplinary </li></ul><ul><li>DR is about researchers’ needs </li></ul><ul><li>Horizontal </li></ul><ul><li>Often has gravitational pull </li></ul><ul><li>May have a variety of support </li></ul><ul><li>A Disciplinary Hub might surround the DR with a variety of other services: </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborator finder and collaboration workspace </li></ul><ul><li>Grant information </li></ul><ul><li>Reputation management and expertise profiling </li></ul><ul><li>Social networking </li></ul><ul><li>Data set curation </li></ul>
    15. 15. Disciplinary Hubs <ul><li>What are good examples?  </li></ul><ul><li>What role do mandates play?  </li></ul><ul><li>Is there a data set curation component? </li></ul><ul><li>Is there a role for library subject liaisons?  </li></ul><ul><li>What is the relationship between IRs and DRs? </li></ul><ul><li>What are successful sustainability plans?  </li></ul>
    16. 16. Disciplinary Hubs - approaches <ul><li>Scan for work that has already been done </li></ul><ul><li>Identify exemplars of disciplinary hubs </li></ul><ul><li>Case studies could characterize what works </li></ul><ul><li>Examine models for sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>… </li></ul>
    17. 17. Thank You!

    ×