Étiquette : research practices

Publié le

When data sharing is an answer and when (often) it is not: Acknowledging data-driven, non-data, and data-decentered cultures

Authors : Isto Huvila, Luanne S. Sinnamon

Contemporary research and innovation policies and advocates of data-intensive research paradigms continue to urge increased sharing of research data. Such paradigms are underpinned by a pro-data, normative data culture that has become dominant in the contemporary discourse. Earlier research on research data sharing has directed little attention to its alternatives as more than a deficit. The present study aims to provide insights into researchers’ perspectives, rationales and practices of (non-)sharing of research data in relation to their research practices.

We address two research questions, (RQ1) what underpinning patterns can be identified in researchers’ (non-)sharing of research data, and (RQ2) how are attitudes and data-sharing linked to researchers’ general practices of conducting their research. We identify and describe data-decentered culture and non-data culture as alternatives and parallels to the data-driven culture, and describe researchers de-inscriptions of how they resist and appropriate predominant notions of data in their data practices by problematizing the notion of data, asserting exceptions to the general case of data sharing, and resisting or opting out from data sharing.

URL : When data sharing is an answer and when (often) it is not: Acknowledging data-driven, non-data, and data-decentered cultures

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24957

Publié le

Data Management Plans in Horizon 2020: what beneficiaries think and what we can learn from their experience

Author : Daniel Spichtinger

Background

Data Management Plans (DMPs) are at the heart of many research funder requirements for data management and open data, including the EU’s Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020. This article provides a summary of the findings of the DMP Use Case study, conducted as part of OpenAIRE Advance.

Methods

As part of the study we created a vetted collection of over 800 Horizon 2020 DMPs. Primarily, however, we report the results of qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey on the experience of Horizon 2020 projects with DMPs.

Results & Conclusions

We find that a significant number of projects had to develop a DMP for the first time in the context of Horizon 2020, which points to the importance of funder requirements in spreading good data management practices. In total, 82% of survey respondents found DMPs useful or partially useful, beyond them being “just” an European Commission (EC) requirement.

DMPs are most prominently developed within a project’s Management Work Package. Templates were considered important, with 40% of respondents using the EC/European Research Council template. However, some argue for a more tailor-made approach.

The most frequent source for support with DMPs were other project partners, but many beneficiaries did not receive any support at all. A number of survey respondents and interviewees therefore ask for a dedicated contact point at the EC, which could take the form of an EC Data Management Helpdesk, akin to the IP helpdesk.

If DMPs are published, they are most often made available on the project website, which, however, is often taken offline after the project ends. There is therefore a need to further raise awareness on the importance of using repositories to ensure preservation and curation of DMPs.

The study identifies IP and licensing arrangements for DMPs as promising areas for further research.

URL : Data Management Plans in Horizon 2020: what beneficiaries think and what we can learn from their experience

DOI : https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.13342.1

Publié le

Early-Career Researchers’ Perceptions of the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Potential Causes, and Open Science

Authors : Stefan Stürmer, Aileen Oeberst, Roman Trötschel, Oliver Decker

Young researchers of today will shape the field in the future. In light of current debates about social psychology’s research culture, this exploratory survey assessed early-career researchers’ beliefs (N = 88) about the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs), potential causes, and open science as a possible solution.

While there was relative consensus that outright fraud is an exception, a majority of participants believed that some QRPs are moderately to highly prevalent what they attributed primarily to academic incentive structures.

A majority of participants felt that open science is necessary to improve research practice. They indicated to consider some open science recommendations in the future, but they also indicated some reluctance. Limitation and implications of these findings are discussed.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000324