This webinar was presented to the RDAP community on December 2, 2019 at 12 pm EST.
The goal of the webinar was to hear from the RDAP community about their experiences with institutional research data policies that regulate the ownership, management, and transfer of research data in an institution.
The webinar organizing committee was Sophie Hou, Amy Schuler, and Clara Liebot
invited panelists were:
Kristin Briney, Biology & Biochemistry Librarian, Caltech University,
Heather Coates, Digital Scholarship & Data Management Librarian / Co-Director, Center for Digital Scholarship, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis,
Abigail Goben, Information Services and Data Management Librarian Associate Professor, University of Illinois-Chicago,
Jonathan Petters, University Libraries Data Management Consultant and Curation Services Coordinator, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Background/Use Case (provided by Clara Llebot of Oregon State University):
I work in a research intensive university as the library data management specialist. I have worked occasionally on data policies during my time here, like when we wrote the policy that regulates dataset reviews in our institutional repository. These policies were usually flexible, informative, and a helpful tool for me. Earlier this year I was asked to be part of a committee that would create an institutional research data management policy in our institution.
I was thrilled that the library was being asked to participate, and at the same time terrified that I had no idea what I was getting into. I have been generally interested in concepts around data ownership, the interactions between copyright and data, decision making regarding research data, etc., but I felt unprepared.An institutional research data policy is, from my perspective, a policy that affects a lot of people, and that has the potential of changing behaviors and research practices in a way that I am definitely not used to. We are still beginning the process of creating the policy, so right now what I have is mostly questions, not answers, about what an institutional research data policy should say.
Main Discussion Questions:
1. Motivations for the policy
Is an institutional research data policy necessary in any institution?
What are the issues/gaps that we are trying to address through this policy?
What should be the goal of an institutional research data policy?
2. Roles and responsibilities
Who should be involved in creating this kind of policy?
How should the faculty be involved in the creation of this policy?
How should a research data policy be enforced?
How should students be affected by this policy?
3. Outcomes of existing data policies
What is the type of content addressed in an institutional research data policy? Should ownership be a part of it?
Are research data policies encouraging or deterring open data?
What can we do, when writing this type of policy, to make clear that the university supports open data? Or should this be in different policies?
What are some examples of situations that are easier/better because there is a research data policy at an institution?
This webinar aired on January 12, 2016 for members of the DataCure listserv. The webinar covered issues around sensitive data and how to establish a educational program to help researchers protect sensitive data while sharing results of their research.
The presenters were Brett Harnett, Director of the UC Center for Health Informatics ( http://www.med.uc.edu/chi) and Jonathan Petters Ph.D. Data Management Consultant at Johns Hopkins University ( http://dmp.data.jhu.edu/).
Presentation 1
- Brett Harnett- the process of de-identifying data especially data resulting from medical records, issues around de-identifying especially unstructured data, working with an IRB and future issues concerning data containing PHI.
Presentation 2
- Jonathan Petters - training for de-identifying human subjects data for sharing and developing a viable library service.
This figure compares optional and required metadata fields for data sets for four institutional repositories -UC, U Michigan, U Minnesota, and Oregon State
This is the poster presented at the 2015 RDAP summit held in Minneapolis, MN. Based on the white paper Tiffany Grant and I wrote on data management best practices. In the white paper, we surveyed the literature to determine institutional best practices for providing research data services and proposed opportunities for UC Libraires.
Reference:
Grant T. and Koshoffer A.,
Research Data Management at Academic Research Institutions: An Evaluation of Best Practices and a Comparative Assessment of Practices and Opportunities at the University of Cincinnati.
This document details our process for creating a service catalog for UC Libraries Research and Data Services and our efforts towards offering data science services. In this document, we identify our gaps in knowledge and expertise while making recommendations for filling these gaps.
This data set describes the percent completeness of metadata options for data sets in four institutional repositories. It is a derivative data set from the master data set entitled "Metadata of data sets from four institutional repositories" https://scholar.uc.edu/show/pn89d657h
Please use the Citation:
Koshoffer, A., Neeser, A., Johnston L.R., and Newman L.D., (2018) "Giving datasets context: a comparison study of institutional repositories that apply varying degrees of curation", International Digital Curation Conference, Barcelona, Spain. Digital Curation Centre.
This data set is the raw data underlying the paper entitled "Giving datasets context: a comparison study of institutional repositories that apply varying degrees of curation" presented at the International Digital Curation Conference in Barcelona, Spain (Feb 2018). All figures and tables in the publication were based on the analysis of this data set.
Please use the Citation:
Koshoffer, A., Neeser, A., Johnston L.R., and Newman L.D., (2018) "Giving datasets context: a comparison study of institutional repositories that apply varying degrees of curation", International Digital Curation Conference, Barcelona, Spain. Digital Curation Centre.
This is the recording from the 2017-10-12 SLA Data Caucus sponsored webinar entitled "Handling Restricted and Sensitive Data"
Panelists featured are:
David Fearon – Data Management Consultant, John Hopkins U Data Archive
Sebastian Karcher – Associate Director, Qualitative Data Repository
Courtney Soderberg – Statistical and Methodological Consultant, Center for Open Science
Johanna Davidson Bleckman – Project Manager, ICPSR
The event was organized by Amy Koshoffer (University of Cincinnati) and Rebecca Kameny (Dryad Digital Repository)
