Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-5
Research data management in practice: Results from a cross-sectional survey of health and medical researchers from an academic institution in Australia
Building or acquiring research data management (RDM) capacity is a major challenge for health and medical researchers and academic institutes alike. Considering that RDM practices influence the integrity and longevity of data, targeting RDM services and support in recognition of needs is especially valuable in health and medical research.
Objective:
This project sought to examine the current RDM practices of health and medical researchers from an academic institution in Australia.
Method:
A cross-sectional survey was used to collect information from a convenience sample of 81 members of a research institute (68 academic staff and 13 postgraduate students). A survey was constructed to assess selected data management tasks associated with the earlier stages of the research data life cycle.
Results:
Our study indicates that RDM tasks associated with creating, processing and analysis of data vary greatly among researchers and are likely influenced by their level of research experience and RDM practices within their immediate teams.
Conclusion:
Evaluating the data management practices of health and medical researchers, contextualised by tasks associated with the research data life cycle, is an effective way of shaping RDM services and support in this group.
Implications:
This study recognises that institutional strategies targeted at tasks associated with the creation, processing and analysis of data will strengthen researcher capacity, instil good research practice and, over time, improve health informatics and research data quality.
AkersKGDotyJ (2013) Disciplinary differences in faculty research data management practices and perspectives. International Journal of Digital Curation8: 5–26.
2.
AkersKGSferdeanFCNichollsNH, et al. (2014) Building support for research data management: biographies of eight research universities. International Journal of Digital Curation9: 171–191.
3.
AndersonNRLeeESBrockenbroughJS, et al. (2007) Issues in biomedical research data management and analysis: needs and barriers. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association14: 478–488.
4.
Australian Government (2017) Data Availability and Use, Report No. 82. In: Productivity Commission (ed). Canberra.
5.
Australian Government and Department of Education and Training (2015) Review of research policy and funding arrangements: Case studies on university business collaboration. Australian Government: Canberra.
6.
BardynTPResnickTCaminaSK (2012) Translational researchers’ perceptions of data management practices and data curation needs: findings from a focus group in an academic health sciences library. Journal of Web Librarianship6: 274–287.
7.
BellGHeyTSzalayA (2009) Computer science. Beyond the data deluge. Science323(5919): 1297–1298.
8.
BorgmanCL (2012) The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology63: 1059–1078.
9.
BorschmannRYoungJTMoranP, et al. (2017) Accuracy and predictive value of incarcerated adults’ accounts of their self-harm histories: findings from an Australian prospective data linkage study. CMAJ Open5(3): E694–E701.
10.
BrownRAWolskiMRichardsonJ (2015) Developing new skills for research support librarians. Australian Library Journal64: 224–234.
11.
BuysCMShawPL (2015) Data management practices across an institution: survey and report. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication3: e1225.
12.
ChungTKKukafkaRJohnsonSB (2006) Reengineering clinical research with informatics. Journal of Investigative Medicine54: 327–333.
13.
CoxAMKennanMALyonL, et al. (2017) Developments in research data management in academic libraries: towards an understanding of research data service maturity. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology68: 2182–2200.
European Commission (2017) Guidelines to the rules on open access to scientific publications and open access to research data in Horizon 2020. H2020 Programme version 3.2. March.
16.
FearK (2011) ‘You made it, you take care of it’: data management as personal information management. International Journal of Digital Curation6: 53–77.
17.
FischbacherCMBhopalRPoveyC, et al. (2007) Record linked retrospective cohort study of 4.6 million people exploring ethnic variations in disease: myocardial infarction in South Asians. BMC Public Health7: 142.
18.
GardnerDTogaAWAscoliGA, et al. (2003) Towards effective and rewarding data sharing. Neuroinformatics1(3): 289–295.
19.
GonzalezAPeres-NetoPR (2015) Data curation: act to staunch loss of research data. Nature520: 436.
20.
HentyMWeaverBBradburyS, et al. (2008) Investigating Data Management Practices in Australian Universities. Report for the Australian Partnerships for Sustainable Repositries (APSR), July.
21.
HicksonSPoultonKAConnorM, et al. (2016) Modifying researchers’ data management practices: a behavioural framework for library practitioners. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions42: 253–265.
22.
HolmanCDBassAJRosmanDL, et al. (2008) A decade of data linkage in Western Australia: strategic design, applications and benefits of the WA data linkage system. Australian Health Review32: 766–777.
23.
HoughtonJGruenN (2014) Open Research Data. Report to the Australian National Data Service (ANDS), Canberra, November.
24.
Innovation and Science Australia (2017) Australia 2030: Prosperity Through Innovation. Report for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. November. Canberra: Australian Government.
25.
JohnsonLMButlerJTJohnstonLR (2012) Developing e-science and research services and support at the university of Minnesota health sciences libraries. Journal of Library Administration52: 754–769.
26.
JutteDPRoosLLBrownellMD (2011) Administrative record linkage as a tool for public health research. Annual Review of Public Health32: 91–108.
27.
KelmanCWBassAJ (2002) Research use of linked health data – a best practice protocol. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health26: 251–255.
28.
KennanMAMarkauskaiteL (2015) Research data management practices: a snapshot in time. International Journal of Digital Curation10: 69–95.
29.
KowalczykS (2017) Modelling the digital research data lifecycle. International Journal of Digital Curation12(2): 331–361.
30.
KnottnerusJA (2016) Research data as a global public good. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology70: 270–271.
31.
MargolisRDerrLDunnM, et al. (2014) The national institutes of health’s big data to knowledge (BD2K) initiative: capitalizing on biomedical big data. Journal of the Medical Library Association21: 957–958.
32.
McEwenECGuthridgeSLHeVY, et al. (2018) What birthweight percentile is associated with optimal perinatal mortality and childhood education outcomes?American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology218(2S): S712–S724.
33.
McFaddenETLoPrestiFBaileyLR, et al. (1995) Approaches to data management. Controlled Clinical Trials16: 30S–65S.
34.
NagyRBoutinTSMartenJ, et al. (2017) Exploration of haplotype research consortium imputation for genome-wide association studies in 20,032 Generation Scotland participants. Genome Medicine9(1): 23.
NeylonC (2017) Compliance culture or culture change? The role of funders in improving data management and sharing practice amongst researchers. Research Ideas and Outcomes3: e14673.
38.
O’KeefeCMConnollyCJ (2010) Privacy and the use of health data for research. Medical Journal of Australia193(9): 537–541.
39.
OECD (2007) OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research data from Public Funding. Paris: OECD Publishing. ISBN: 9789264034020, 12 April.
40.
PerrierLBlondalEAyalaAP, et al. (2017) Research data management in academic institutions: a scoping review. PLoS One12: e0178261.
41.
RayBHenaffMMaS, et al. (2014) Information content and analysis methods for multi-modal high-throughput biomedical data. Scientific Reports4: 4411.
42.
ReadKBSheehanJRHuertaMF, et al. (2015a) Sizing the problem of improving discovery and access to NIH-funded data: a preliminary study. PLoS One10: e0132735.
43.
ReadKBSurkisALarsonC, et al. (2015b) Starting the data conversation: informing data services at an academic health sciences library. Journal of the Medical Library Association103: 131–135.
44.
Research Data Alliance (2015) Research Data Alliance Outputs. Report for RDA Europe, May 2015.
45.
SchumacherJVandeCreekD (2015) Intellectual capital at risk: data management practices and data loss by faculty members at five American universities. International Journal of Digital Curation10: 96–109.
46.
SiLWXingWZhuangX (2015) Investigation and analysis of research data services in university libraries. The Electronic Library33: 417–449.
47.
SurkisALaPollaFWZContaxisN, et al. (2017) Data day to day: building a community of expertise to address data skills gaps in an academic medical center. Journal of the Medical Library Association105: 185–191.
48.
SurkisAReadK (2015) Research data management. Journal of the Medical Library Association103: 154–156.
49.
TenopirCAllardSDouglassK, et al. (2011) Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS One6: e21101.
Universities Australia (2016) Policy statement on F.A.I.R access to Australia’s research outputs. Available at: www.fair-access.net.au(accessed 1 August 2018).
52.
VaughnKTLHayesBELernerRC, et al. (2013) Development of the research lifecycle model for library services. Journal of the Medical Libraries Association101: 310–314.
53.
VinesTHAlbertAYAndrewRL, et al. (2014) The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Current Biology24: 94–97.
54.
WellerTMonroe-GulickA (2014) Understanding methodological and disciplinary differences in the data practices of academic researchers. Library Hi Tech32: 467–482.
55.
WhitmireALBoockMSuttonSC (2015) Variability in academic research data management practices: implications for data services development from a faculty survey. Program: Electric Library and Information Systems49(4): 382–407.
56.
WilkinsonMDDumontierMAalbersbergIJ, et al. (2016) The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data3: 160018.
57.
WilloughbyCBirdCLColesSJ, et al. (2014) Creating context for the experiment record. User-defined metadata: investigations into metadata usage in the LabTrove ELN. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling54(12): 3268–3283.
58.
WolskiMHowardLRichardsonJ (2017) The importance of tools in the data lifecycle. Digital Library Perspectives33: 235–252.
59.
YuFDeubleRMorganH (2017) Designing research data management services based on the research lifecycle: a consultative leadership approach. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association66: 287–298.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
