This qualitative study explores contradictions in data quality assurance (DQA) practices within research data repositories (RDRs), interpreted through the lens of activity theory and data quality literature. It analyzes data from 32 interviews with curators and repository managers representing 32 repositories across 30 universities in the United States. The findings highlight several challenges faced by RDR staff, including differences in understanding DQA among stakeholders, the need for adequate resources, domain-specific knowledge, research expertise, and standardised data quality metrics. The study also identifies contradictions arising from misalignments in motivation between RDR staff and depositors and friction between the DQA practices of research labs and the standardised DQA models promoted by RDRs. In addition, it reveals contradictions between the RDRs’ infrastructures and curation models and the evolving needs of stakeholders. The article proposes resolution strategies for each identified contradiction.
MasonRO.Four ethical issues of the information age. MIS Q1986; 10(1): 5–12.
2.
GururanganSCardDDrierSK, et al. Whose language counts as high quality? Measuring language ideologies in text data selection. arXiv preprint, 2022, https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.10474
3.
ScheuermanMKHannaADentonE.Do datasets have politics? Disciplinary values in computer vision dataset development. Proc ACM Hum-comput Interact2021; 5(CSCW2): 1–37.
4.
StviliaBGibradzeL. Seeking and sharing datasets in an online community of data enthusiasts. Libr Inf Sci Res Libr Inf Sci Res. 2022; 44(3): 101160.
5.
BallA. Review of data management lifecycle models. Bath: University of Bath.
LeeDJStviliaB. Practices of research data curation in institutional repositories: A qualitative view from repository staff. PLoS ONE2017; 12(3): e0173987.
KaptelininVNardiB.Activity theory in HCI: fundamentals and reflections. Synth Lect Hum Cent Inform2012; 5(1): 1–105.
12.
StviliaBLeeDJHanN. “Striking out on your own” - A study of research information management problems on university campuses. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2021; 72(8): 963–978.
BaileyKD.Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. New York: Sage, 1994.
15.
JuranJ.Juran on quality by design. New York: The Free Press, 1992.
16.
De RoureD. Replacing the paper: the twelve Rs of the e-Research. Nature Blog, 27November2010.
17.
FanielIMFrankRDYakelE.Context from the data reuser’s point of view. J Doc2019; 75(6): 1274–1297.
18.
GutmannMSchürerKDonakowskiD, et al. The selection, appraisal, and retention of social science data. Data Sci J2004; 3: 209–221.
19.
StviliaBHinnantCWuS, et al. Research project tasks, data, and perceptions of data quality in a condensed matter physics community. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2015; 66(2): 246–263.
20.
YorkJ.Seeking equilibrium in data reuse: a study of knowledge satisficing. Phd Thesis, University of Michigan, MI, 2022.
21.
StviliaBGasserLTwidaleMB, et al. A framework for information quality Assessment. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2007; 58(12): 1720–1733.
ZhouLDivakarlaMLiuX.An overview of the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) science data product calibration and validation. Remote Sens2016; 8(2): 139.
TenopirCRiceNMAllardS, et al. Data sharing, management, use, and reuse: practices and perceptions of scientists worldwide. PLoS ONE2020; 15(3): e0229003.
26.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine (NASEM). Reproducibility and replicability in science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2019.
BarrettC.Are the EU GDPR and the California CCPA becoming the de facto global standards for data privacy and protection?Scitech Lawyer2019; 15(3): 24–29.
29.
U.S. Congress. An act to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws, and for other purposes. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2002, H.R. 3763, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-107publ204
30.
LyonL.The informatics transform: re-engineering libraries for the data decade. Int J Dig Curation2012; 7(1): 126–138.
31.
CraginMHPalmerCLCarlsonJR, et al. Data sharing, small science and institutional repositories. Philos Trans R Soc A2010; 368(1926): 4023–4038.
32.
BoydDCrawfordK.Critical questions for big data: provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Inf Commun Soc2012; 15(5): 662–679.
SwarupSBravermanVAroraR, et al. Challenges and opportunities in big data research: Outcomes from the second annual joint PI meeting of the NSF BIG DATA research program and the NSF big data regional innovation hubs and spokes programs 2018. NSF Workshop Reports, June2018, https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10113364
35.
BorgmanCLWallisJCEnyedyN.Little science confronts the data deluge: habitat ecology, embedded sensor networks, and digital libraries. Int J Digital Libr2007; 7: 17–30.
36.
ChenSChenB.Practices, challenges, and prospects of Big Data curation: a case study in geoscience. Int J Data Curation2020; 14: 275–291.
37.
SimonHA.The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
38.
StviliaBLeeDJ. Data quality assurance in research data repositories: a theory-guided exploration and model. Journal of Documentation2024; 80(4): 793–812.
39.
NardiBA. Objects of desire: power and passion in collaborative activity. Mind Cult Act2005; 12(1): 37–51.
40.
WangRYStrongDM.Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manage Inf Syst1996; 12(4): 5–33.
41.
SoergelD.Indexing languages and thesauri: construction and maintenance. Los Angeles, CA: Wiley, 1974.
KhanRGuptaNSinhababuA, et al. Impact of conversational and generative AI systems on libraries: a use case large language model (LLM). Sci Tech Libr2023; 43: 319–333.
48.
AroraREstevaMTreloganJ.Leveraging high performance computing for managing large and evolving data collections. Int J Digi Curat2014; 9(2): 331.
49.
EpplerMJ.Managing information quality: Increasing the value of information in knowledge-intensive products and processes. New York: Springer, 2006.
BearmanDTrantJChunS, et al. Social terminology enhancement through vernacular engagement: Exploring collaborative annotation to encourage interaction with museum collections. D-Lib Magazine2005; 11(9): 26.
GreenbergJ.Big metadata, smart metadata, and metadata capital: toward greater synergy between data science and metadata. J Data Inf Sci2017; 2(3): 19–36.
Office of Science Technology Policy (OSTP). Report to the U.S. Congress on financing mechanisms for open access publishing of federally funded research. Washington, DC, 2023, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/266/
62.
PasekJE.Historical development and key issues of data management plan requirements for National science foundation grants: a review. Issue Sci Tech Librari2017; 87: 1–1.
