Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

What I wish I’d known at the start!

1 808 vues

Publié le

What I wish I’d known at the start! What I wish I’d known at the start! Lessons learned the hard way when setting up RDM services;
Stephen Grace, London South Bank University, Sarah Jones, DCC; Research Data Network

Publié dans : Formation
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

What I wish I’d known at the start!

  1. 1. What I wish I’d known at the start! Lessons learned the hard way when setting up RDM services Stephen Grace, Sarah Jones, Rachel Proudfoot, Hardy Schwamm, Marta Teperek, Mary Donaldson
  2. 2. What went well • Support from senior management (new Pro- VC for Research), Steering Group • Got data repository up and running on time • First wave of top-down advocacy • Good feedback on existing RDM service and training offers • Got involved in Jisc and other RDM projects • Collaboration with IT, RSO and others
  3. 3. What didn’t go so well • Senior academics are fairly quiet about RDM • Difficult to embed training in PGR courses • Interest in RDM services slowed down • Measuring of RDM compliance
  4. 4. What I’d do differently • Start with a more positive message about Open Research, not compliance and policy driven • Find pilot projects, especially in arts & humanities and allies, e.g. in Data Science • Focus on bottom-up advocacy and engagement
  5. 5. What went well at UEL • Adopted an RDM policy in 9 weeks • Secured funding for infrastructure and staff member • Keen support from library senior managers • Training adopted as part of Graduate School programme • Jisc-funded TRaD project (blog) • DCC engagement support
  6. 6. What didn’t go so well at UEL • No steering group, so no “buy-in” • No senior academic championing • Seen as “niche” within library service • Little to no engagement with IT and Research Office
  7. 7. What I’d do differently • Get some level of senior championing • Bottom-up advocacy and engagement • Greater willingness to experiment (if time permits) • More concerted engagement with professional service colleagues (though it takes two to tango!)
  8. 8. What went well • Asking others for help and listening to advice from experts – thank you all  • Research Community Engagement: – Data Champions – Open Research Pilot • Engagement of other service providers at the Uni – RDM Project Group - inclusive approach • Transparency of the approach & experience sharing • Training on various aspects of RDM • Speed of service creation and delivery • Involvement in the Jisc pilot, DAF survey
  9. 9. What didn’t go so well • Business case • Insufficient senior leadership engagement • Constraints of working with proprietary systems • Communication between the various (internal) stakeholders • Saying ‘yes’ to everything
  10. 10. What I’d do differently • Dedicated workshops and sessions for senior leaders (PIs) • Re-brand the name of the service – Negative association with Open Access • Design benchmarking strategies and robust reporting systems from the start • More time for thinking
  11. 11. What went well • Senior champion • Dedicated Steering Group and ‘Working’ Group • Structure and momentum • EPSRC requirements • A catalyst for cross-service working • Business case
  12. 12. What didn’t go so well • Business case (lot of effort) • Too much agonising? Sometimes there is no ‘right’ answer • Lack of integration with other workflows and technical infrastructure (outwith our control?)
  13. 13. What I’d do differently • Not try to boil the ocean • Get low hanging fruit • More concrete examples – training and advocacy • Get out even more! • Would we use our own repository?
  14. 14. What went well • Support from senior management and research office • Initial start-up funding as project • Integration of systems • Positive association with Open Access • Dedicated archival storage • RDM included in University policies • Argument for sustainability • Good tie-up with other services eg ethics
  15. 15. What didn’t go so well • Integration with Arkivum • Traction in certain fields of research • Engagement with Arts and Humanities • Poor communication with IT services • Our workflow is quite manual
  16. 16. What I’d do differently • Try to drive the ‘positive’ message more (rather than compliance). • Put more effort into gathering examples of best practice • Try to make case studies of RDM done well by local researchers • More engagement with our Biomedical community
  17. 17. Thank you Stephen Grace stephen.grace@lsbu.ac.uk Sarah Jones sarah.jones@glasgow.ac.uk Rachel Proudfoot R.E.Proudfoot@leeds.ac.uk Hardy Schwamm h.schwamm@lancaster.ac.uk Marta Teperek mt446@cam.ac.uk Mary Donaldson mary.Donaldson@glasgow.ac.uk NB Opinions expressed here are those of the contributors, and not to be taken as official statements from their respective institutions.