Open research data: A case study into institutional and infrastructural arrangements to stimulate open research data sharing and reuse

Authors : Thijmen van Gend, Anneke Zuiderwijk

This study investigates which combination of institutional and infrastructural arrangements positively impact research data sharing and reuse in a specific case. We conducted a qualitative case study of the institutional and infrastructural arrangements implemented at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.

In the examined case, it was fundamental to change the mindset of researchers and to make them aware of the benefits of sharing data. Therefore, arrangements should be designed bottom-up and used as a “carrot” rather than as a “stick.” Moreover, support offered to researchers should cover at least legal, financial, administrative, and practical issues of research data management and should be informal in nature.

Previous research describes generic institutional and infrastructural instruments that can stimulate open research data sharing and reuse. This study is among the first to analyze what and how infrastructural and institutional arrangements work in a particular context. It provides the basis for other scholars to study such arrangements in different contexts.

Open data policymakers, universities, and open data infrastructure providers can use our findings to stimulate data sharing and reuse in practice, adapted to the contextual situation. Our study focused on a single case and a particular part of the university.

We recommend repeating this research in other contexts, that is, at other universities, faculties, and involving other research data infrastructure providers.

URL : Open research data: A case study into institutional and infrastructural arrangements to stimulate open research data sharing and reuse

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221101200

What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption

Authors : Anneke Zuiderwijk, Rhythima Shinde, Wei Jeng

Both sharing and using open research data have the revolutionary potentials for forwarding scientific advancement. Although previous research gives insight into researchers’ drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data, both these drivers and inhibitors have not yet been integrated via a thematic analysis and a theoretical argument is lacking.

This study’s purpose is to systematically review the literature on individual researchers’ drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data. This study systematically analyzed 32 open data studies (published between 2004 and 2019 inclusively) and elicited drivers plus inhibitors for both open research data sharing and use in eleven categories total that are: ‘the researcher’s background’, ‘requirements and formal obligations’, ‘personal drivers and intrinsic motivations’, ‘facilitating conditions’, ‘trust’, ‘expected performance’, ‘social influence and affiliation’, ‘effort’, ‘the researcher’s experience and skills’, ‘legislation and regulation’, and ‘data characteristics.’

This study extensively discusses these categories, along with argues how such categories and factors are connected using a thematic analysis. Also, this study discusses several opportunities for altogether applying, extending, using, and testing theories in open research data studies.

With such discussions, an overview of identified categories and factors can be further applied to examine both researchers’ drivers and inhibitors in different research disciplines, such as those with low rates of data sharing and use versus disciplines with high rates of data sharing plus use. What’s more, this study serves as a first vital step towards developing effective incentives for both open data sharing and use behavior.

URL : What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239283