Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01500154 = product of:
  0.0750077 = sum of:
    0.0750077 = sum of:
      0.04621041 = weight(_text_:management in 4638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04621041 = score(doc=4638,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 4638, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4638)
      0.02879729 = weight(_text_:22 in 4638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02879729 = score(doc=4638,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4638, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4638)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose Visualisations of research and research-related activities including research data management (RDM) as a lifecycle have proliferated in the last decade. The purpose of this paper is to offer a systematic analysis and critique of such models. Design/methodology/approach A framework for analysis synthesised from the literature presented and applied to nine examples. Findings The strengths of the lifecycle representation are to clarify stages in research and to capture key features of project-based research. Nevertheless, their weakness is that they typically mask various aspects of the complexity of research, constructing it as highly purposive, serial, uni-directional and occurring in a somewhat closed system. Other types of models such as spiral of knowledge creation or the data journey reveal other stories about research. It is suggested that we need to develop other metaphors and visualisations around research. Research limitations/implications The paper explores the strengths and weaknesses of the popular lifecycle model for research and RDM, and also considers alternative ways of representing them. Practical implications Librarians use lifecycle models to explain service offerings to users so the analysis will help them identify clearly the best type of representation for particular cases. The critique offered by the paper also reveals that because researchers do not necessarily identify with a lifecycle representation, alternative ways of representing research need to be developed. Originality/value The paper offers a systematic analysis of visualisations of research and RDM current in the Library and Information Studies literature revealing the strengths and weaknesses of the lifecycle metaphor.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.2, S.142-157

0.004621041 = product of:
  0.023105204 = sum of:
    0.023105204 = product of:
      0.04621041 = sum of:
        0.04621041 = weight(_text_:management in 3791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04621041 = score(doc=3791,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 3791, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3791)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article reports an international study of research data management (RDM) activities, services, and capabilities in higher education libraries. It presents the results of a survey covering higher education libraries in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK. The results indicate that libraries have provided leadership in RDM, particularly in advocacy and policy development. Service development is still limited, focused especially on advisory and consultancy services (such as data management planning support and data-related training), rather than technical services (such as provision of a data catalog, and curation of active data). Data curation skills development is underway in libraries, but skills and capabilities are not consistently in place and remain a concern. Other major challenges include resourcing, working with other support services, and achieving "buy in" from researchers and senior managers. Results are compared with previous studies in order to assess trends and relative maturity levels. The range of RDM activities explored in this study are positioned on a "landscape maturity model," which reflects current and planned research data services and practice in academic libraries, representing a "snapshot" of current developments and a baseline for future research.

0.003773064 = product of:
  0.018865319 = sum of:
    0.018865319 = product of:
      0.037730638 = sum of:
        0.037730638 = weight(_text_:management in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037730638 = score(doc=168,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

On April 2, 2018, the State Council of China formally released a national Research Data Management (RDM) policy "Measures for Managing Scientific Data". In this context and given that university libraries have played an important role in supporting RDM at an institutional level in North America, Europe, and Australasia, the aim of this article is to explore the current status of RDM in Chinese universities, in particular how university libraries have been involved in taking the agenda forward. This article uses a mixed-methods data collection approach and draws on a website analysis of university policies and services; a questionnaire for university librarians; and semi-structured interviews. Findings indicate that Research Data Service at a local level in Chinese Universities are in their infancy. There is more evidence of activity in developing data repositories than support services. There is little development of local policy. Among the explanations of this may be the existence of a national-level infrastructure for some subject disciplines, the lack of professionalization of librarianship, and the relatively weak resonance of openness as an idea in the Chinese context.

0.003201551 = product of:
  0.016007755 = sum of:
    0.016007755 = product of:
      0.03201551 = sum of:
        0.03201551 = weight(_text_:management in 999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03201551 = score(doc=999,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 999, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=999)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to examine the shaping of librarianship in the academic context through the literature of career specialties, with Abbott's (1988) system of professions providing an analytic framework. The specialties investigated are systems librarian, electronic resource librarian, digital librarian, institutional repository manager, clinical librarian and informationist, digital curator/research data manager, teaching librarian/information literacy educator, and information and knowledge manager. Piecemeal literature based on job advertisements, surveys, and individual case studies is consolidated to offer a novel perspective on the evolution of the profession. The resilience of the profession's core jurisdiction is apparent despite pressures to erode it. Forays into teaching, and more recently into open access and data management, can be understood as responses to such pressure. The attractions but also the risks of embedded roles and overextended claims become apparent when comparing past and prospective specialties.

0.002879729 = product of:
  0.014398645 = sum of:
    0.014398645 = product of:
      0.02879729 = sum of:
        0.02879729 = weight(_text_:22 in 2569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02879729 = score(doc=2569,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2569, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

30.12.2008 19:38:22

0.002667959 = product of:
  0.013339795 = sum of:
    0.013339795 = product of:
      0.02667959 = sum of:
        0.02667959 = weight(_text_:management in 5474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02667959 = score(doc=5474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose A major development in academic libraries in the last decade has been recognition of the need to support research data management (RDM). The purpose of this paper is to capture how library research data services (RDS) have developed and to assess the impact of this on the nature of academic libraries. Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire responses from libraries in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and USA from 2018 are compared to a previous data set from 2014. Findings The evidence supports a picture of the spread of RDS, especially advisory ones. However, future ambitions do not seem to have seen much evolution. There is limited evidence of organisational change and skills shortages remain. Most service development can be explained as the extension of traditional library services to research data. Yet there remains the potential for transformational impacts, when combined with the demands implied by other new services such as around text and data mining, bibliometrics and artificial intelligence. A revised maturity model is presented that summarises typical stages of development of services, structures and skills. Research limitations/implications The research models show how RDS are developing. It also reflects on the extent to which RDM represents a transformation of the role of academic libraries. Practical implications Practitioners working in the RDM arena can benchmark their current practices and future plans against wider patterns. Originality/value The study offers a clear picture of the evolution of research data services internationally and proposes a maturity model to capture typical stages of development. It contributes to the wider discussion of how the nature of academic libraries are changing.

0.0021343674 = product of:
  0.010671836 = sum of:
    0.010671836 = product of:
      0.021343673 = sum of:
        0.021343673 = weight(_text_:management in 845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021343673 = score(doc=845,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 845, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)