Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

DAF Survey Results, research data network

Research data network, September 2016, Rob Johnson

  • Login to see the comments

DAF Survey Results, research data network

  1. 1. 06/09/2016 Research Data Network Meeting Understanding researchers’ needs 2016 DAF survey findings – Rob Johnson (ResearchConsulting) @rschconsulting
  2. 2. The DAFToolkit The Data Asset Framework (DAF) toolkit allows institutions to: »Identify, Locate, and Describe digital assets »Assess how they are managed 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting
  3. 3. Towards a refined DAF survey Research Consulting was tasked with the development of a refined version of the DAF survey. 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting 2016 Today Apr May Jun Jul Aug Analysis of existing DAF surveys from pilot institutions 1/4/2016 Begin development of a refined DAF survey 25/4/2016 Pilot institution feedback 26/5/2016 Final version of the refined DAF survey 28/6/2016 Launch of the DAF survey at 6 pilot institutions 4/7/2016 Analysis of the survey results and reporting 5/8/2016
  4. 4. 06/09/2016 Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting Profile of the survey respondents
  5. 5. Profile of respondents by Institution 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »The survey gathered a total of 1,185 responses. 37% 25% 21% 10% 5% 1% The University of Cambridge St Andrews University Plymouth University Lancaster University CREST The Royal College of Music (RCM)
  6. 6. 06/09/2016 Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting Survey Results
  7. 7. »Full anonymised dataset is now online: » Johnson, Rob; Chiarelli, Andrea; Parsons,Tom (2016): Data asset framework (DAF) survey results 2016. figshare. »http://dx.doi.org//10.6084/m9.figshare.3796305 »Or just google it! Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting06/09/2016
  8. 8. Top 10 types of digital research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Audio files (e.g. interviews, music) Models/algorithms Simulation data, models & software code Observational data Text files (e.g. .txt) Digital photographs and other images Data collected from sensors/instruments (e.g. microscopes) Data automatically generated from or by computer programs Spreadsheets Documents or reports (e.g., Word, PDF, etc.) Percentage of respondents
  9. 9. Research Data Management 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting 40% 37% 23% No Yes Not sure »Do researchers have a research data management plan?
  10. 10. Sensitive research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »What types of sensitive data do researchers hold? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Patient identifiable data Other types of confidential/restricted data Commercially sensitive data Sensitive personal data Personal data about identifiable living individuals Percentage of respondents
  11. 11. Sensitive research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting “It would be helpful to clarify the rules for storing anonymised data on cloud services. My departmental rules say this is never OK, however this seems to contradict University rules.”
  12. 12. Location of research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »Professors vs. PGR Students 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% University-managed network storage Cloud service – Dropbox Hard disk drive of a computer owned by the University Hard disk drive of a privately- owned computer External hard drive or memory stick/USB/Flash drive Percentage of respondents PGR Students (N=443) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Hard disk drive of a privately- owned computer University-managed network storage Cloud service – Dropbox External hard drive or memory stick/USB/Flash drive Hard disk drive of a computer owned by the University Percentage of respondents Professors (N=105)
  13. 13. University services to support RDM “Support is woeful in the university currently, in particular long-term data archiving is critically required. Most of my non-current data is rotting on CD's and hard-drives.” 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting
  14. 14. Impacts of research data loss 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »17% of respondents had lost data, resulting in… 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Failure to meet regulatory requirements Failure to meet funder requirements Reputational damage Reduction in quality of research outputs Delay to publication Wasted research effort Percentage of respondents with lost data
  15. 15. Preservation of research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »How much data has long-term value? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Not sure More than 1 TB 501GB-1TB 101 GB- 500 GB 51-100 GB <50 GB Percentage of respondents Data owned at present Data expected to have long term value
  16. 16. Preservation of research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »How would respondents expect to preserve their data? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% General data repository Discipline-specific data repository Other - Please specify: Institutional data repository Percentage of respondents
  17. 17. Preservation of research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting “I currently spend about £1,200 pa on data storage from my own salary. I have the highest data needs in my School, and there is no plan in place for storing my data.”
  18. 18. Preservation of research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »For how long do respondents expect their data to be preserved? 5-10 years >10 years I don't know 1-5 years 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Percentage of respondents 5-10 years >10 years I don't know 1-5 years
  19. 19. Preservation of research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »Do you follow guidelines for metadata? 48% 34% 18% No Not sure Yes
  20. 20. Sharing research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »68% of respondents either already share data or expect to do so in the future.What motivates them? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% University Research Data Policy Saves time and effort of sharing results with individuals My funder requires data sharing Safeguards research integrity Increases citation and impact Verification of research findings Potential for others to re-use the data Research is a public good and should be open to all Percentage of respondents
  21. 21. University services to support RDM 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »Do researchers use university services to support data management and sharing? 35% 29% 16% 10% 10% 0% I don't know what services are available I don't currently use these services, but I expect to in future I already use these services I don't expect to use these services Not sure There are no services available
  22. 22. Training needs on Research Data Management 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Technical support for data processing, e.g. database design, High Performance Computing (HPC) Ethics, consent and legal issues with research data Copyright and intellectual property rights within a data context Funder requirements for research data management Guidance on costing data management in grant applications Publishing research data Security of data Collaboration and sharing of data Developing a research data management plan for a funding application Long-term storage of your data Percentage of respondents
  23. 23. University services to support RDM 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting “Please, individualise the support.Workshop are useless, emails with information are useless, brochures are useless, posters are useless.”
  24. 24. Lessons learned 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »Incentives › voucher for first N respondents + draw for the rest of the respondents › higher amount of smaller vouchers »Dissemination › direct emails › weekly staff newsletter › library blog › library tweets › research office/research staff blog › staff portal › PGR portal › link on RDM guidance page/newsletter › targeted reminders to “missing” departments
  25. 25. 06/09/2016 Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting Institutional focus groups
  26. 26. Focus groups 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting 1. To allow researchers to make Jisc aware of their issues and concerns 2. To collect use cases for the RDSS 3. To inform and stimulate discussion on important data and metadata issues »What are the aims of the focus groups?
  27. 27. »Timeline of focus groups Focus groups 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting 2016 Today May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Oct/NovTBC University of Surrey Lancaster University St George's Hospital Medical School University ofYork University of St Andrews Cardiff University
  28. 28. Focus groups 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting Business development managers “I want to create news stories around the data sets, so as to use them as impact case studies.“ »Sample use cases: Researchers “I want to be able to encrypt data uploaded to the repository, so sensitive or commercial data can be safely stored.“ “I want to know who is reusing my data, so that I can collaborate and learn more about their use.“ Reusers of data “I want to know licence and policy for reuse, so that I am clear what I can do with the data. “
  29. 29. Conclusions 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting Filling a gap 75% of respondents look first to their institution to preserve their data Advocacy Only 16% of respondents are currently accessing university RDM support services Public datasets >70% recognise that research is a public good and should be publicly released Metadata Only 18% of respondents say they follow established metadata guidelines Sensitive data 41% of respondents have some form of sensitive data Uptake of RDM Only 40% of respondents have a Research Data Management plan
  30. 30. The DAF dataset »The data used for this analysis is available as a csv dataset at: »http://dx.doi.org//10.6084/m9.figshare.3796305 Contact: rob.johnson@researchconsulting.co.uk @rschconsulting 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting
  31. 31. 06/09/2016 Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting Additional slides 2016 DAF survey findings – Rob Johnson (ResearchConsulting) @rschconsulting
  32. 32. Profile of respondents by Role 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »The survey respondents had 9 different roles. 38% 18% 16% 9% 9% 4% 4% 1% 1% Postgraduate student (e.g. MA, MSc, MEng, PhD, etc.) Lecturer/Research Fellow Research Assistant/Post Doc Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellow Professor Assistant/Associate Professor Other Administrative/Professional Technician
  33. 33. Volume of research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »How much data do researchers hold? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Not sure More than 1 TB 501GB-1TB 101 GB- 500 GB 51-100 GB <50 GB Professors (N=105) PGR students (N=442) All respondents
  34. 34. Location of research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »Where is research data stored (Top 5)? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Cloud service – Dropbox University-managed network storage Hard disk drive of a privately-owned computer External hard drive or memory stick/USB/Flash drive Hard disk drive of a computer owned by the University Percentage of respondents All respondents
  35. 35. Loss of research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »Have researchers ever lost data? 83% 17% No Yes Top 3 causes for loss of data 1. Hardware failure 2. Human error 3. Equipment stolen
  36. 36. Sharing research data 06/09/2016 Jisc Shared Research Data Pilot Meeting »How do you share data with other researchers? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% By upload to a web site or FTP server accessible to that researcher Institutional file-sharing service Share it on an academic social network (e.g. Academia, ResearchGate, Mendeley) Using portable storage such as CDs, DVDs, memory sticks etc. Using a cloud storage service e.g. Dropbox, Google Drive etc. By emailing data files Percentage of respondents

×