Location

Session 3, Piedmont Ballroom

Start Date

21-10-2013 1:30 PM

End Date

21-10-2013 2:20 PM

Description

This was part of a panel presentation given with Jen Doty, Emory University, and Vince Carter, Emory University.

From late 2010 through spring of 2013, Georgia Tech Library’s Research Data Project Team conducted a multi-faceted assessment of GT research data needs. In this program, we will discuss the four methodologies used in our data needs assessment. Each methodology served a different purpose, allowing us to collect different but complementary information. While our survey provided a broad overview of practices, individual interviews contributed to a more thorough and nuanced understanding of trends observed in the survey. By analyzing data management plans submitted alongside NSF proposals, we better understand how researchers expect to comply with funding agency requirements for data management and sharing. Finally, data archiving case studies prompted deep discussions with researchers about their data, as well as critical conversations within the Library about the types, formats, and volumes of data we can commit to preserving. This combination of methodologies and results informs our strategic goal to develop campus partnerships to collect, manage, share, and preserve Georgia Tech digital research data. While our assessment was conducted with a narrow scope of research data services, the methodologies employed can easily be adapted and used to study and assess other Library services.

Share

COinS
 
Oct 21st, 1:30 PM Oct 21st, 2:20 PM

Research Data Needs Assessment at Georgia Tech

Session 3, Piedmont Ballroom

This was part of a panel presentation given with Jen Doty, Emory University, and Vince Carter, Emory University.

From late 2010 through spring of 2013, Georgia Tech Library’s Research Data Project Team conducted a multi-faceted assessment of GT research data needs. In this program, we will discuss the four methodologies used in our data needs assessment. Each methodology served a different purpose, allowing us to collect different but complementary information. While our survey provided a broad overview of practices, individual interviews contributed to a more thorough and nuanced understanding of trends observed in the survey. By analyzing data management plans submitted alongside NSF proposals, we better understand how researchers expect to comply with funding agency requirements for data management and sharing. Finally, data archiving case studies prompted deep discussions with researchers about their data, as well as critical conversations within the Library about the types, formats, and volumes of data we can commit to preserving. This combination of methodologies and results informs our strategic goal to develop campus partnerships to collect, manage, share, and preserve Georgia Tech digital research data. While our assessment was conducted with a narrow scope of research data services, the methodologies employed can easily be adapted and used to study and assess other Library services.