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?
The Global Library Services Discussion Group welcomes all interested colleagues to join us in a discussion about serving our library users in a global setting. This will be an opportunity for audience members to discuss challenges and opportunities they are facing, and give their perspectives on what the most important developments are in this field. From online instruction and reference services strategies, to access and inclusion challenges in serving our users across many time zones, all topics are welcome for discussion. Members of the Global Library Services DG will be on hand to lend their own perspectives in this very important discussion.
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/).
- 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.
- Jonathan Petters - training for de-identifying human subjects data for sharing and developing a viable library service.
What initially looked like several change agents colliding to create a year of turbulence, came to be a year of transformation for our teaching practice. Both external forces, such as ACRL’s Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, and internal forces, such as new strategic directions in eLearning, provided momentum as we redesigned our research guides. The presentation includes a case study of a year-long process of re-envisioning our guides to enhance content based on the Framework’s threshold concepts, incorporate responsive and accessible design, and reflect our pedagogical practices. Throughout the process we collaborated with key campus stakeholders: eLearning strategists, English Composition faculty, and the student population. In addition, our process coincided with the renovation of one of our classrooms into a collaborative teaching and learning environment. The presentation demonstrates how the new space converged with our instruction strategies.