Hi Louise,
On 27/03/2015 15:58, Corti, Louise wrote:
> The responsibility for all the things set out is with multiple actors in the data management and sharing landscape. It is not just small RDM teams that need to bear the 'burden' but Research Group leaders, PIs and the teams themselves, nominated in-house data managers, and also, department heads. These people are the ones who are in charge of the research, careers and reputations and are perfectly capable for monitoring their own research and data.
For the most part I'd agree with you. But it's your policy that says
institutions must "ensure ESRC grant holders comply fully with this
research data policy". I don't detect any panic, only some curiosity
about what ESRC means by some of its policy contents.
> The UK Data service, along with all the great services emerging out there in the institutional arena, still provide one-on-one advice and training, and part of that is suggesting appropriate metadata standards.
Thanks for the clarification that the metadata standards in your policy
are 'suggestions'.
> Tools like DMP can help of course, but often it is not purely about auditing process, but about ensuring check points within projects to make sure all is on track.
I believe 'ensuring check points' is what is intended for DMPonline,
rather than audit. It would be very unfortunate if the ESRC policy was
interpreted as a requirement for institutions to check that researchers
are following to the letter whatever they said in a pre-award DMP. That
would risk damaging research, and the credibility of any support service
stupid enough to try it.
> No one at the Research Council is checking or policing every step - that is really not the idea. It's about encouraging best practice. So relax a bit and continue your great work in upskilling the nations' academics!
For what it's worth, in my opinion the new policy is a step forward.
Spelling out responsibilities for institutions is helpful I believe,
because the compliance 'stick' begs questions about benefits, risks and
value and that (at least in some institutions) encourages a change to
viewing data as an asset. But is it really any surprise that, in
response to such a policy, institutions ask for some clarity about the
implications before they spend their money doing anything?
That "best practice" principle also applies to policy consultation I
believe. EPSRC carried out some post-hoc consultation on its research
data policy, and issued clarification. Perhaps ESRC did some
consultation already and that's not needed, but I suspect at least some
FAQs could be helpful.
Best wishes,
Angus
--
Dr Angus Whyte
Senior Institutional Support Officer
Digital Curation Centre
University of Edinburgh
Crichton St, Edinburgh EH8 9LE
+44-131-650-9980
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
|