DATUM

Fileplan for the shared drive

2012-02-01T16:19:00.001Z

The action taking phase of the DATUM in Action project includes the EU project staff implementing the DMP using in-house software and shared drives. The EU project staff have requested help in organising files on the MATSIQEL shared drive. We have drawn up a fileplan, based on previous experiences, and this has been set up and is currently being populated by EU project staff with existing and new files. In that process the fileplan may need some amendment. The outline fileplan is given below and a more detailed version is available on the Project website.

ProjectDevelopment

ProjectManagement

Administration
Agreements
Dissemination
Finance

FunderCommunication

Meetings

Personnel

Planning

Reporting

WorkPackage[name/number]

Dissemination
Ethics+Governance
ProjectManagement

Administration
Meetings
Finance
Planning
Reporting

ResearchLiteratureReview
Research[name of activity]

Administration
Data
DataAnalysis
LiteratureReview
Outputs
Tools

The complexity in the above fileplan comes from the complexity of the MATSIQEL project. This comprise several Work Packages each with their own leaders and researchers, and under each Work Package be a number of different research activities undertaken. This causes the repetition of folders such as ProjectManagement or Finance that would contain files applicable either to the whole project or only to the specific Work Package. As the fileplan is populated decisions will be made about the appropriate level for files and whether this repetition is necessary.

A simplified version of the fileplan for a simpler project might comprise:

ProjectDevelopment

ProjectManagement

Administration
Agreements
Dissemination
Ethics+Governance
Finance

FunderCommunication

Meetings

Personnel

Planning

Reporting

ResearchLiteratureReview

Research[name of activity]

Administration
Data
DataAnalysis
Outputs
Tools

The next stage is to apply access controls to the folders. Certain folders such as ProjectManagement>Personnel contain files that should only be seen by the PI. Other folders such as ProjectManagement>Dissemination contain files that need to be accessible and usable (read & write) by all members of the team.

The EU project staff also requested help with file naming and version control. Guidance on fileplans, file naming and version control is in production. This tailored guidance is drawing on, and referencing, existing published guidance.

Although a fileplan is not rocket science, it is an unfamiliar concept to many researchers. It is also not as simple to produce as you might expect as all research projects vary in their nature, size and the demands placed upon them. We have used names for the folders/sub-folders which means that folders are in A/Z rather than logical order. We felt that numbering folders to achieve logical ordering would not be acceptable to the researchers. The other problem is that of retention management. Folders are likely to contain items with different retention periods. Either we create additional sub-folders to reflect this, enabling folders to be deleted when required, or we would have to accept that everything is kept for the longest required period: deletion at the granular level of the file is too time consuming to be practical.

RDM Roles and Responsibilities

2012-01-31T17:37:00.001Z

An important precursor to completing and implementing a DMP is the establishment of RDM roles and responsibilities among the researchers on a project. These are often not implicitly considered by the researchers, or are assumed on the basis of long-term working relationships.

Guidance from funders seem to focus on the roles and responsibilities of the Principal Investigator (PI), the researchers’ organisation, data archive organisations and the funder themselves. Roles of other researchers (and possibly PhD students and other types of staff in large projects) are not listed.

The UK Data Archive lists the people who may be involved in data management:

principal investigators designing research
research staff or students collecting, creating, processing and analysing data
external contractors with a role in data collection, collation or processing, e.g. transcribers
support staff managing and administering research
institutional IT services providing data storage, security and back-up services
external data centres or archives who facilitate data sharing

http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/create-manage/planning-for-sharing/roles-responsibilities

The Medical Research Council’s (MRC) guidance for example gives the role of the PI as including, among other activities:

... ensuring confidentiality in accordance with ethical and legal requirements
As custodian of the research data, they are responsible for making best use of the participants’ data, including through sharing, and for the integrity, security and quality of research data management, in accordance with institutional policies and recognised data standards

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Ourresearch/Ethicsresearchguidance/datasharing/Policy/PHSPolicy/roles/index.htm

We have developed an initial idea of what RDM roles and responsibilities within a research team might comprise: we would welcome feedback and comment on this.

Principal Investigator

The PI’s role and responsibilities are to:

Set the RDM culture and practice (based on good practice guidance) and delegate responsibilities as appropriate
Make decisions (after consultation within the team) about issues such as data access, data sharing, long-term retention of data
Develop (in consultation with the team) new RDM protocols/procedures and/or use/amend existing protocols: a team member could be delegated to scope and write these documents
Ensure a DMP is developed and maintained: a team member could be delegated to do this
Ensure that all RDM requirements (legal, funder, institutional, etc.) are included in the DMP
Monitor RDM practices and ensure RDM requirements are met
Manage and/or devolve responsibility for the project level documents and records i.e.

proposal, action plan etc.
reporting
financial
presentations, publications, outputs

Obtain the necessary resources to conduct RDM, e.g. IT, allocation of responsibility for a team member to be a data controller

Researchers

Follow the University policy and recommended best practice on RDM on an individual basis
Follow good RDM practice on an individual basis
Follow the project’s RDM practices for project activities (e.g. collecting/creating data, analysing data, producing outputs)
Raise RDM issues with the PI for resolution

The EU Project Team have raised the issue of allocating one member of the project team to be a ‘data controller’. This is not strictly a data controller in the Data Protection sense, but a person who would see that the research data was managed in accordance with ethical requirements; that access controls were applied (as appropriate); that audit trails between the different stages of data processing/analysis, and version control, was maintained; that migration to accessible formats was undertaken (where necessary); that data was destroyed (where applicable, e.g. raw data), retained securely for the required retention period, or placed into the public domain.

Data Requirements Questionnaire

2012-01-10T15:30:00.001Z

We've put up a copy of the data requirements questionnaire we developed and used on our project. http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/academic/ceis/re/isrc/themes/rmarea/datum/action/outputs/

This questionnaire was developed by drawing on (i) the questionnaires used in the Incremental http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/preservation/incremental/documents/Incremental_Scoping_Report_170910.pdf and Sudamih http://sudamih.oucs.ox.ac.uk/docs/Sudamih%20Researcher%20Requirements%20Report.pdfprojects; (ii) the DCC curation lifecycle model http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/curation-lifecycle-model

Data Management Plan

2012-01-08T19:59:00.000Z

The Data Management Plan (DMP) template used for the DATUM in Action project was the one we developed for our previous DATUM in Health project (see http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/academic/ceis/re/isrc/themes/rmarea/datum/health/materials/session1/ for a copy), which was in turn developed from the Digital Curation Centre’s (DCC) template (see https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/documents). As we worked with the EU Project researchers we made further amendments to our DMP comprising:

developing further guidance and making this available as a separate document linked to the template
cutting down on duplication within the template by cross referencing, so information only needed to be recorded once
cutting down on duplication with other researcher activities (e.g. ethics approval forms) by asking for the locations of relevant documents held in paper/electronic form rather than repeating this information within the DMP
providing space for noting actions that needed to be taken: making the DMP a living document

The first version of the EU Project’s DMP has now been completed, and further versions will be produced as the EU project develops over time. The data requirements identified in the first action cycle of DATUM in Action have been embedded into the DMP.

A major concern expressed by the EU Project researchers was that completing a DMP was a demanding task, and that for many projects researchers would feel that the effort and time required for a DMP could be better spent on conducting the research itself. Projects are funded from a range of sources (most of which do not currently require DMPs), and vary in size from small scale, single researcher projects to large scale, multiple-researcher projects. They therefore need different levels of data management. If data management is to be promulgated for all researchers and all research projects than DMP-lite templates will be necessary. We have added a front page to our DMP template so the sections can be seen at a glance, and it will be easy for the researcher to identify the sections that are relevant / not relevant to a specific project. Automation of a DMP would also be helpful to achieve this.

However, the EU Project researchers have already benefitted from the DMP process as they have learnt new aspects about managing their research data and records.

Data Requirements

2011-12-19T13:05:00.002Z

The data requirements for the DATUM in Action project were obtained by: (i) a questionnaire (based on those used by the Incremental and Sudamih projects) and (ii) a focus group. An overview of these requirements is given below.

Context

The DATUM in Action (RDMP) project is supporting research staff on an EU project to plan and implement research data management (RDM). The EU project (MATSIQEL), funded under the Marie Curie International Research Staff Exchange Scheme, is accumulating expertise for the mathematical and computer modelling of ageing processes with the aim of developing models which can be implemented in technological solutions (e.g. monitors, telecare, recreational games) for improving and enhancing quality of life. Led by the School of Computing, Engineering and Information Sciences (SCEIS), it comprises six work packages involving researchers at Northumbria (SCEIS and the School of Health, Community and Education Studies (SHCES)) and in Australia, Bulgaria, Germany, Mexico and South Africa. The RDMP project is focussing on two of its work packages (WP4 Technical solutions and implementation and WP5 Quality of Life).

The first Action Research Cycle of the RDMP project was to gather the RDM requirements of the EU project. This was done via a focus group and questionnaires with SCEIS and SCHES staff.

Work Packages

WP4. Technical solutions and implementation

The main emphasis of this work package is to model and predict the use of telecare technology on enabling older people to age in their preferred place and supporting them to do what is important to them. Older people and their carers desire to be independent and have control over their own lives. Technological solutions can contribute to this outcome, however understanding of circumstance and context is poorly developed. This will be addressed by examining historical information from a telecare service on what the user was doing when triggering sensors to predict likely future activity.

WP5. Quality of Life

The traditional view of older people emphasises experiences of loss, decline and dependency. However, there is a growing body of work which challenges this view as an inadequate explanation for experiences which older people themselves identify as associated with well-being, autonomy, togetherness, security, and which they manage through self-care and inner strength. More inclusive definitions of health and quality of life do acknowledge the way that older people use their inherent adaptive capacities to best effect and it is this conceptualisation of quality of life that is the central focus of this work package. An important aspect of this work will be to examine the way that older people engage with telecare technologies to enhance their ability to self-care and optimise their life experience thereby improving quality of life.

Current Datasets

Data from a telecare service, comprising qualitative and quantitative data
Transcripts of Interviews with older people, comprising qualitative data

More data will be collected as the EU project develops.

RDM Requirements

For the EU Project

EU funder requirements

Changeability: the EU project is an exploratory project in an under-researched field so requirements will change, and change on a regular basis

Management of ethical approval forms, permissions and correspondence: ethical approval has been obtained for the current research activity; additional approval will be required for new activities. Keeping an audit trail of approval and associated activities will be required

Management of consent forms: consent has been obtained for current and future use of the telecare and interview data. Further data collection may require consent from a new group of participants

Some of the data is covered by a non-disclosure agreement so confidentiality of this data must be ensured

Anonymity of the data must be ensured

The data will undergo a series of manipulations: anonymisation, cleansing, extraction, collation, analysis by different groups using different analytical methods (qualitative, statistical, mathematical modelling). Audit trail, tracking and version control will be required

Within Northumbria University, controlled access is required to the data and associated materials by staff from two schools

Outside Northumbria University, access to subsets of the data by staff from a range of universities within and without the EEC is required. Anonymised data needs to be provided to these staff in a secure fashion, e.g. by the use of encryption, and by a suitable transfer mechanism. In return, these staff need to share their results with Northumbria University staff in the same fashion.

There are different disciplines involved in the EU project, with different research paradigms and expertise with different methodologies. At Northumbria University the disciplines are health, social care, maths and computing. There are different RDM expectations and procedures between the different disciplines, and within and between the different schools.

For the Computing / Maths Disciplines

There are usually no external RDM requirements. Procedures tend to be developed on an ad hoc basis as needed during the lifetime of the project, following industry standards and professional working practices. Expertise is with quantitative data, managing large datasets, and use of sophisticated computing and computational tools. Involvement in ethical approval procedures and participant consent is unfamiliar.

For the Health/Social Care Disciplines

Expertise is with mixed methods, qualitative data and close involvement with participants. A major focus is on ethical issues, particularly informed consent and confidentiality, and ethical approval procedures. There are external requirements for this, e.g. NRES and the Data Protection Act. A much richer collection of associated research materials are produced and require management. The extension of RDM guidance to protocols and possibly standard operating procedures would be helpful.

For both the disciplines, research funding is obtained from a wide range of funders. The Research Councils and big charities now have requirements, for RDM to be included in proposals, and for data to be shared. Over time it is likely that this trend will extend to many other types of research funder.

Workshop at the 7th International Digital Curation Conference

2011-12-19T13:01:00.000Z

On behalf of the DATUM in Health project, I was a presenter at a workshop during the 7th International Digital Curation Conference held in Bristol.

Workshop 2: Delivering post-graduate research data management training was held on 5^th December. Contributions were made from a number of JISCMRD projects:

Research Data MANTRA, University of Edinburgh
DATUM for Health, Northumbria University
DataTrain, University of Cambridge
CAIRO, University of Bristol
DaMSII, DCC & RIN, University of Glasgow

and one external project:

Data Observation Network for Earth (DataONE), University of New Mexico, USA.

Three breakout groups addressed the topics:

Creating and repurposing discipline-specific learning materials
Modes of delivery (Face-to-face, online, etc.)
Engagement with postgraduate training programmes

Copies of the presentations can be seen at: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/events/idcc11/workshopsWorkshop

JISCMRD02 2011-13 Programme Launch Event, 1-2 December - reporting

2011-12-16T10:32:00.001Z

Links to the reports from the various sessions at this event:

Day 2 session: 'identifying and supporting researcher requirements':

http://kaptur.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/jiscmrd-identifying-and-supporting-researcher-requirements/

Thematic session on the Business Case for RDM: presentations by June Finch (University of Manchester, MaDAM and MiSS Projects) and James Wilson (University of Oxford, Sudamih, VIDaaS and DaMaRO Projects): http://bit.ly/v6HhfK

Biomedical/Health breakout group: chaired by Jonathan Tedds (BrissKit), representation from MRD strands A, B, and C: http://bit.ly/sc2TW1

Approaches to Measuring Success for Project Blogs

2011-12-16T10:23:00.000Z

See Marie-Therese Gramstadt’s blog post about this http://kaptur.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/jiscmrd-launch-brian-kelly-tips/ It is a follow up to Brian Kelly’s session and the discussion on "Blogging Practices To Support Project Work" [1] at the JISCMRD Programme Launch.

On 09/12/2011 14:40, Brian wrote:

“During the session I touched on ways in which the effectiveness of a blog may be measured. Due to lack of time I was unable to cover this in any detail. However I have just published a post on UKOLN ISC blog which explores these issues in more depth: http://isc.ukoln.ac.uk/2011/12/09/blog-analytic-services-for-jisc-mrd-project-blogs/

In brief, there will be a need to understand how effective a project blog is. There are various approaches (surveys, voting tools for posts, measuring retweets of posts, etc.) However these may be time-consuming or way not work for particular audiences. One approach I have suggested is registering one's project blog with blog analytic services such as Technorati and EBuzzing (formerly Wikio). As with any services for measuring 'success' (e.g. the REF) these have limitations and, being academics, we could spend a long time arguing about metrics, ways in which systems can be gamed, etc. However if used with caution, such services may help to provide a better understanding of how one's blog is engaging with other's in the blogosphere (e.g. "Who is linking to me and how well-established are they?") In addition using such services in a systematic fashion (e.g. adopting use of the JISCMRD tag) could enable projects to quickly see patterns across the community (e.g. does a Technorati search for 'JISC' [2] indicate blogs which are effective in encouraging discussion and links and can one learn from the approaches which have been taken?)

It strikes me that the JISC MRD project might be an appropriate propgramme to begin explorations of such metrics in part because you'll be aware of the importance of data and ways in which data can be used (and mis-used). But in addition you may also have an interest in altmetrics [3] including ways in which social media tools, such as blogs, can help to identify the impact of research beyyond citations. Comments welcome, either here or on the blog. Note I know that metrics can be a controversial topic so I'd welcome constructive comments.

References

1 Blogging Practices To Support Project Work , http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/workshops/blogging-practices-jiscmrd -2011/

2 Technorati *blog* search for 'JISC', http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/

3 altmetrics manifesto, http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/

Brian Kelly, UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, UK, BA 2 7AY Email:b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk Blog:http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @briankelly and @ukwebfocus Phone: +44 1225 383943

Comments on JISC MRD 2011-13 Launch Meeting

2011-12-05T09:21:00.002Z

I attended last week’s launch meeting held at the very impressive NCL Conference Centre, Nottingham (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/di_researchmanagement/managingresearchdata/mrdlaunch.aspx). Good to catch up with people I’d met through our previous RDM project (DATUM for Health www.northumbria.ac.uk/datum) and to meet new people. The range of new (longer) infrastructure and (very short) data management planning projects is impressive. The poster session provided an excellent opportunity to get snapshot overviews of these and to talk with project staff. A couple of other highlights:

the session about benefits and impact measurement – good discussion with colleagues at University of Hertfordshire, despite our very different projects we shared some good ideas about what might be possible. And Neil Beagrie indicated RDM projects should be ‘eligible’ as REF impact case studies

the session for short projects on data management planning and meeting funder requirements. My short presentation generated some really good discussion and sharing of views, ideas and experiences, meaning it wasn’t short in the end! In addition to sharing our experiences from DATUM for Health and now DATUM in Action I highlighted the importance of managing the retention of research data/information – I don’t think the message from the RDM projects should be ‘keep everything’. We must try to assess value/potential value no matter how challenging that can be – appraisal is one of the most difficult aspects of information/records management as records managers and archivists know well! Really good ideas about writing research data papers and publishing in open journals – common in some science disciplines but not something I’m familiar with in information management, social sciences. REDm-MED and REWARD projects are really interesting and relevant to ours.

A real buzz over the two days, lots of blogging and tweeting. Congratulations to Programme Manager Dr Simon Hodson for organising such a stimulating event.

DATUM in Action – Supporting researchers to plan and manage their research data

2011-10-30T20:30:00.004Z

Welcome to this new blog for the JISC funded DATUM in Action project which aims to help a collaborative group of researchers working on an EU FP7 staff exchange project (MATSIQEL) to define and implement good research data management (RDM) practice. The DATUM in Action team, Prof Julie McLeod (Lead), Sue Childs and Elizabeth Lomas, are helping the EU research staff to develop a data management plan and supporting systems and then evaluate their initial implementation. The project is seeking to improve practice on the ground through more effective and appropriate systems, tools/solutions and guidance for managing research data. It builds on the successful DATUM for Health project, which developed training materials to promote and improve RDM capacity and skills in HEIs, by improving practice on the ground’ through more effective and appropriate systems, tools/solutions and guidance for managing research data.

Working with four researchers and one PhD student involved in one of the EU project’s work packages, we are using a form of action research. Action research (i.e. practical problem solving) is participative, emergent and reflective, and aims to improve practice and achieve institutional change. The requirements analysis, DMP development and supporting infrastructure development will each form an action research cycle, each cycle comprising three phases covering the processes of action planning > action taking > reflection. The project is currently part way through the first cycle (requirements analysis).

The EU (MATSIQEL) project, funded under the Marie Curie International Research Staff Exchange Scheme, is accumulating expertise for the mathematical and computer modelling of ageing processes with the aim of developing models which can be implemented in technological solutions (e.g. monitors, telecare, recreational games) for improving and enhancing quality of life. Lead by Professor Maia Angelova, School of Computing, Engineering and Information Sciences at Northumbria University, it comprises six work packages involving researchers at Northumbria and in Australia, Bulgaria, Germany, Mexico and South Africa. DATUM in Action will focus on one of its work packages (WP5 Quality of Life) lead by Professor Glenda Cook, School of Health, Community & Education Studies, Northumbria University.

The project runs from 3 Oct 2011-31 March 2012. Full details are available at the project website http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/datum