Report: Massive gap with research data assistance
I read The State of Open Data 2023 and want to offer a few reactions:
There has been a lot of talk about mandates from funding agencies and publishers to drive open access and open science behaviors. The report even suggests weaving this aspect into faculty annual reviews as well as tenure and promotion efforts.
It's not going to work:
From: The State of Open Data 2023
The next ten years is undoubtably about building the open science infrastructure. Linking together publications, code, data, protocols — openly — we can all see that future. But this is not just about digital infrastructure or policies — the social-cultural infrastructure is just as vital; we don’t talk about this enough.
The real challenge is on the ground. It takes a lot of work to store, manage and curate data. Thankfully the report highlights this aspect. I don’t think that faculty resistance is philosophical, it’s more a matter of productivity. Workflows. Practices. Configurations. Habits. Behaviors. Systems. Credit.
The real question: how can we reduce the burden on researchers?
Maybe AI can help? Can it draft readme files and documentation too?
From: The State of Open Data 2023
Overall, the most striking finding: almost three-quarters (75%) of the respondents have never received assistance with making their data openly available. This statistic points to a major issue where a vast majority of researchers are left to navigate the complexities of data management / open data without adequate guidance or resources.
From: The State of Open Data 2023
Something I’ve come to believe in reaching faculty is that everything is grassroots. It’s all one-on-one relationships. We can put things on library websites. We can publish press releases. We can send emails to faculty lists. We can even share info at department meetings. We can do “all the things” but over and over again via reports like this it’s clear: the message isn’t being received.
For decades librarians have been trying to tell students and faculty about all the great services they offer. Collections. Tools. Events. Workshops. Expertise. I find that most people are unaware of most of the things that we offer. (sadly)
Three quick thoughts:
The Social Enterprise. It’s all about the 1-1 relationships. It might not scale but you could probably beat this 25% benchmark. Consider what your “researcher message stack” looks like — all the offerings that would “reduce the burden.” ORCID. Researcher Profiles. Data and publishing needs for their discipline. DMP Tool. Repositories. Research metrics. Grant seeking efforts. Protocols. Knowledge management tools. And so on. Keep a list and work these into 1-1 conversations. Socialize these things, informally. I think it’s the only way to seed adoption. Librarianship is a social enterprise. And it’s a long game.
Systemic Change. The solution isn’t just: “DMP Tool + FigShare.” It’s part of a larger overhaul. It’s rethinking labs & collaborative projects. A platform (OSF) or a mandate isn’t a magic bullet. This is really about redesigning workflows. Open research is a call to action. A call to re-imagine and re-define how research is done. And that action requires systemic change. We have we realize that we are changing systems and not just adding a new component here or there. We have to look at open science as a social-political movement rather than just new technology for greater efficiency and reach.
Focus on graduate students and postdocs. Most of the work happening in university labs is via students and postdocs. They are the one’s handling the data and feeling the burden. They are the ones who have to make it all work. They are the unsung heroes of scientific progress and scholarship! Systemic change starts with them— so socialize open science tools, methods, mindsets, benefits, and values with them: 1-1.
