Assessing Quality Variations in Early Career Researchers’ Data Management Plans

Jukka Rantasaari
{"title":"Assessing Quality Variations in Early Career Researchers’ Data Management Plans","authors":"Jukka Rantasaari","doi":"10.2218/ijdc.v18i1.873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to better understand early career researchers’ (ECRs’) research data management (RDM) competencies by assessing the contents and quality of  data management plans (DMPs) developed during a multi-stakeholder RDM course. We also aim to identify differences between DMPs in relation to several background variables (e.g., discipline, course track). The Basics of Research Data Management (BRDM) course has been held in two multi-faculty, research-intensive universities in Finland since 2020. In this study, 223 ECRs’ DMPs created in the BRDM of 2020 - 2022 were assessed, using the recommendations and criteria of the Finnish DMP Evaluation Guide + General Finnish DMP Guidance (FDEG). The median quality of DMPs appeared to be satisfactory. The differences in rating according to FDEG’s three-point performance criteria were statistically insignificant between DMPs developed in separate years, course tracks or disciplines. However, using content analysis, differences were found between disciplines or course tracks regarding DMP’s key characteristics such as sharing, storing, and preserving data. DMPs that contained a data table (DtDMPs) also differed highly significantly from prose DMPs. DtDMPs better acknowledged the data handling needs of different data types and improved the overall quality of a DMP. The results illustrated that the ECRs had learned the basic RDM competencies and grasped their significance to the integrity, reliability, and reusability of data. However, more focused, further training to reach the advanced competency is needed, especially in areas of handling and sharing personal data, legal issues, long-term preserving, and funders’ data policies. Equally important to the cultural change when RDM is an organic part of the research practices is to merge research support services, processes, and infrastructure into the research projects’ processes. Additionally, incentives are needed for sharing and reusing data.","PeriodicalId":87279,"journal":{"name":"International journal of digital curation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of digital curation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v18i1.873","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper aims to better understand early career researchers’ (ECRs’) research data management (RDM) competencies by assessing the contents and quality of  data management plans (DMPs) developed during a multi-stakeholder RDM course. We also aim to identify differences between DMPs in relation to several background variables (e.g., discipline, course track). The Basics of Research Data Management (BRDM) course has been held in two multi-faculty, research-intensive universities in Finland since 2020. In this study, 223 ECRs’ DMPs created in the BRDM of 2020 - 2022 were assessed, using the recommendations and criteria of the Finnish DMP Evaluation Guide + General Finnish DMP Guidance (FDEG). The median quality of DMPs appeared to be satisfactory. The differences in rating according to FDEG’s three-point performance criteria were statistically insignificant between DMPs developed in separate years, course tracks or disciplines. However, using content analysis, differences were found between disciplines or course tracks regarding DMP’s key characteristics such as sharing, storing, and preserving data. DMPs that contained a data table (DtDMPs) also differed highly significantly from prose DMPs. DtDMPs better acknowledged the data handling needs of different data types and improved the overall quality of a DMP. The results illustrated that the ECRs had learned the basic RDM competencies and grasped their significance to the integrity, reliability, and reusability of data. However, more focused, further training to reach the advanced competency is needed, especially in areas of handling and sharing personal data, legal issues, long-term preserving, and funders’ data policies. Equally important to the cultural change when RDM is an organic part of the research practices is to merge research support services, processes, and infrastructure into the research projects’ processes. Additionally, incentives are needed for sharing and reusing data.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估早期职业研究人员数据管理计划的质量差异
本文旨在通过评估在多方参与的 RDM 课程中制定的数据管理计划 (DMP) 的内容和质量,更好地了解早期职业研究人员 (ECR) 的研究数据管理 (RDM) 能力。我们还旨在找出与几个背景变量(如学科、课程方向)相关的 DMP 之间的差异。研究数据管理基础(BRDM)课程自 2020 年起在芬兰两所多学院研究密集型大学开设。在这项研究中,我们采用《芬兰 DMP 评估指南》+《芬兰 DMP 指导通则》(FDEG)的建议和标准,对在 2020 - 2022 年的 BRDM 课程中创建的 223 个 ECR 的 DMP 进行了评估。DMP质量的中位数似乎是令人满意的。根据 FDEG 的三点绩效标准,在不同年份、课程轨道或学科中制定的 DMP 之间的评分差异在统计上并不显著。然而,通过内容分析,我们发现不同学科或课程之间在 DMP 的主要特征(如共享、存储和保存数据)方面存在差异。包含数据表的 DMP(DtDMP)与散文式 DMP 也有很大不同。DtDMP 更好地满足了不同数据类型的数据处理需求,提高了 DMP 的整体质量。结果表明,ECR 已经学会了 RDM 的基本能力,并掌握了它们对数据完整性、可靠性和可重用性的重要意义。然而,要达到高级能力,还需要更有针对性的进一步培训,特别是在处理和共享个人数据、法律问题、长期保存和资助者数据政策等方面。当 RDM 成为研究实践的有机组成部分时,同样重要的文化变革是将研究支持服务、流程和基础设施纳入研究项目流程。此外,还需要为数据共享和再利用提供激励措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reproducible and Attributable Materials Science Curation Practices: A Case Study Trusted Research Environments: Analysis of Characteristics and Data Availability Preserving Secondary Knowledge Factors Influencing Perceptions of Trust in Data Infrastructures Assessing Quality Variations in Early Career Researchers’ Data Management Plans
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1