Katya Mueller, MLIS
North Carolina State University Libraries
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1614-041X
Introduction
The release of the Nelson Memo in 2022 set higher expectations regarding the disposition of research data. This, in addition to the rapidly growing demand at North Carolina State University for research data management (RDM) support, led to the creation of a project to assess and improve the Libraries’ RDM planning services. This editorial will discuss the current state of the project, outlining our current methods and next steps.
Why This Project?
NC State University Libraries offers a range of services related to RDM support. One service is the Data Management Plan (DMP) Review Service, which the Libraries has run for the past decade. This free service invites faculty and researchers to submit drafts of their DMPs to a team of librarians who provide feedback to the researcher. The combination of (1) reaching ten years, (2) the release of the Nelson Memo, and (3) increased demand for RDM support led to the Libraries implementing a multi-year project to assess this service. The project includes an internal assessment of the review service and environmental scan of similar services offered by R1 institutions. The ultimate goal is to generate an actionable set of recommendations to refine existing workflows, identify avenues for deeper collaboration with campus partners, such as the Office of Research and Innovation (ORI) and the Office of Information Technology (OIT), and identify ways to better connect with researchers during the proposal development process and at the time of grant award.
The Process: Internal Review
Due to the modality of the review service, we have kept records of all the feedback documents (1-2 pages of compiled comments and notes librarians shared with the PIs) generated over the past 10 years. By reviewing these documents, we hoped to identify the feedback we had been giving researchers and name common elements, if any, to find out what researchers have repeatedly struggled with. To do this, I inductively qualitatively coded a subset of these feedback documents (63 of 165 documents). The codes identified the feedback itself, but also how the feedback was provided, such as (1) providing exact verbiage for PIs to use, (2) asking for clarification/more content (3) providing help with content specifics, and (4) giving information regarding NC State services, changes in policy, etc.
In addition to this work, we held a discussion with members of the DMP Review Service committee, asking questions about the success and challenges of conducting the service within the current workflow, and what they hoped this project would accomplish.
The Process: External Review
The purpose of the external review was to learn how other R1 university libraries conduct similar RDM services, with the hopes of identifying approaches we could adopt to improve our current workflows. This information is not readily accessible through public means, so we decided to (1) disseminate a questionnaire to a broader range of institutions, and (2) conduct interviews to collect richer, more descriptive data. We filtered for R1 institutions that offer similar DMP review services and disseminated our questionnaire to librarians via email to a total of 132 institutions. For the interviews, we reached out to librarians at institutions designated by NC State University as peer institutions and conducted semi-structured Zoom interviews with 10 institutions.
Findings and Next Steps: Internal Review
Through conducting the internal review, we identified the most common feedback the Libraries has been giving researchers on their submitted DMPs. These elements differed in content; some were more related to data management principles, such as providing guidance for choosing a data repository, while other feedback was more specific to the format of the document, such as moving content to proper section headings. This review prompted further reflection on our current resources, resulting in a mapping exercise to match our web pages, resources, and workshops to the identified feedback points. This, in turn, prompted a deeper review of said resources.
Around the same time, the review committee had been deliberating adjusting the approach of teaching semesterly RDM-based workshops to create asynchronous content instead. The DMP feedback review, coupled with the mapping exercise and deeper review of RDM resources, has been folded into further discussions regarding changes to RDM resources and services. As a next step, we plan to make changes to our web pages based on the mapping exercise.
Findings, Reflections, and Further Questions: External Review
In addition to the 10 semi-structured Zoom interviews, we received 66 complete questionnaire responses.
As a team of librarians running a DMP review service, we were most interested in learning about the workflows of similar team approaches. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of DMP review services are run by an individual, as reported by 48 of 66 questionnaire respondents. Institutions with a team approach utilize a very similar workflow to ours of triaging, using collaborative documents to leave comments, and emailing feedback to the researcher.
However, as we concluded active data collection and interviewing and began analyzing our data, we realized there was a much larger looming question: How do institutions define DMP support?
It is important to note that not all participant libraries had a formal DMP review service. A limited number of interviewee and questionnaire responses indicated DMP specific-support was no longer offered through the library, though they still offered general RDM support.
I’ve paraphrased a few examples below of how our participants described their DMP review services and support as it related to DMP review:
- A formalized review service in which a DMP draft is submitted for review, and comments are made and given to the researcher. This review may be done by one person or multiple, and may include individuals from outside the library.
- An ad hoc approach in which there is no formal DMP review service, but where a team is assembled to review a DMP as needed.
- A more consultative approach to discuss the needs and the researcher’s project regarding RDM. There may or may not be a drafted DMP at this point.
- Drafting the DMP for the researcher.
- Offering workshops on writing a DMP.
- Providing documentation, such as LibGuides, worksheets, or access to the DMP Tool for researchers to create a DMP.
- Providing boilerplate language or example DMPs for researchers to refer to. (It should be noted participants in our study had mixed feelings on this approach)
While we have yet to identify actionable recommendations for our institution based on our findings at this point, it has been highly beneficial to learn and understand the different approaches our peers are taking in supporting researchers. While our project focus is on the formal DMP document, the DMP is inextricably linked to RDM practices. Understanding how different institutions approach RDM support broadly will help enrich our internal discussion and formulation of a plan to improve our current services.
Next Steps and Takeaways
Over the course of this project, I have gained a deeper understanding of the DMP, its requirements, and common pitfalls researchers encounter when writing one, and have also learned a lot more about what RDM support can look like.
As an early-career librarian, the internal review was very helpful for me to become familiar with DMPs written by NC State researchers, and it helped to inform the ways in which we reviewed our current RDM resources.
For the upcoming semester, we plan to publish a more comprehensive report of our findings from the questionnaire and the interviews, and internally, create a tailored list of recommendations. We look forward to sharing those in the future.
