This readme.txt file was generated on 2018-02-06 by Lisa Johnston ------------------- GENERAL INFORMATION ------------------- 1. Title of Dataset Supplementary Data for 'How Important Are Data Curation Activities to Researchers? Gaps and Opportunities for Academic Libraries' 2. Author Information Principal Investigator Contact Information Name: Lisa Johnston Institution: University of Minnesota Address: Minneapolis, MN Email: ljohnsto@umn.edu Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Carlson, Jake Institution: University of Michigan Address: Email: Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Hudson-Vitale, Cynthia Institution: Washington University in St. Louis Address: Email: Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Imker, Heidi Institution: Washington University in St. Louis Address: Email: Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Kozlowski, Wendy Institution: Cornell University Address: Email: Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Olendorf, Robert Institution: Penn State University Address: Email: Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Stewart, Claire Institution: University of Minnesota Address: Email: 3. Date of data collection: 2016-10-11 to 2016-11-18 4. Geographic location of data collection: Cornell University (Ithaca, NY), Penn State University (College Park, PA), University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign, IL), University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI), University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN), and Washington University (St.Louis, MO). 5. Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation -------------------------- SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION -------------------------- 1. Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ 2. Links to publications that cite or use the data: Supplementary Data for 'How Important Are Data Curation Activities to Researchers? Gaps and Opportunities for Academic Libraries' in Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication (2018). 3. Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: "Preprint and supplementary data previously shared as "Johnston, Lisa R; Carlson, Jake; Hudson-Vitale, Cynthia; Imker, Heidi; Kozlowski, Wendy; Olendorf, Robert; Stewart, Claire. (2017). Results of the Fall 2016 Researcher Engagement Sessions. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/188641." 4. Links/relationships to ancillary data sets: Preprint & data 5. Was data derived from another source? n/a If yes, list source(s): 6. Recommended citation for the data: Johnston, Lisa R; Carlson, Jake; Hudson-Vitale, Cynthia; Imker, Heidi; Kozlowski, Wendy; Olendorf, Robert; Stewart, Claire. (2018). Supplementary Data for 'How Important Are Data Curation Activities to Researchers? Gaps and Opportunities for Academic Libraries'. Retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota, https://doi.org/10.13020/D6PQ30. --------------------- DATA & FILE OVERVIEW --------------------- 1. File List A. Filename: Supplemental Data Tables for DCN 2016 Engagement Events.xlsx Short description: Data Tables B. Filename: DCN2016EngagementEvents_CurationActivityCards_8x11.pdf Short description: Card Rating Exercise C. Filename: DCN2016EngagementEventWorksheet.pdf Short description: Worksheet Protocol 2. Relationship between files: Data collected in the Data Tables were collected using the two survey tools. 3. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: n/a 4. Are there multiple versions of the dataset? no -------------------------- METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION -------------------------- 1. Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: Between October 21, 2016 and November 18, 2016 the authors of this report engaged 91 researchers across six focus group sessions, termed as “Data Curation Roundtable” sessions, held at the following academic institutions: ​Cornell University, Penn State University, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, and Washington University in St.Louis. The participants represented a good mix of experience (faculty, graduate student, post-doc) and discipline (see table 1). Each session lasted 1 ½ hours over lunch, which was provided by the Data Curation Network project in exchange for their participation. Each session was broken into three parts. First we used a card swapping and rating exercise that asked researchers to rate the importance of data curation activities for their data. Second, we used a paper-based survey instrument to collect the researchers’ levels of engagement and satisfaction with those same data curation activities. Third, we engaged researchers in facilitated focus group discussions around the barriers and challenges of applying the top five most highly ranked data curation activities in their individual workflows. 2. Methods for processing the data: Data were transcribed from the card rating exercise and the worksheets. The ratings data were averaged across all institutions. 3. Instrument- or software-specific information needed to interpret the data: n/a 4. Standards and calibration information, if appropriate: n/a 5. Environmental/experimental conditions: n/a 6. Describe any quality-assurance procedures performed on the data: data entry validation techniques were used to ensure a value of 1-5 for the cards were entered. 7. People involved with sample collection, processing, analysis and/or submission: Author Lisa Johnston. ----------------------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: Supplemental Data Tables for DCN 2016 Engagement Events.xlsx ----------------------------------------- 1. Number of variables: 6 tabs 2. Number of cases/rows: Tab 1 - 10 rows Tab 2 - 38 rows Tab 3 - 35 rows Tab 4 - 35 rows Tab 5 - 17 rows Tab 6 - 15 rows 3. Missing data codes: Code/symbol X Definition: Activity was rated or discussed at that institution Code/symbol ✓ Definition: Activity was rated or discussed at that institution Code/symbol: Blank Definition: Activity was not rated or discussed at that institution 4. Variable List [Descriptions of and content overview of tabs.] Tab 1 - Table1: Disciplinary representation at the six engagement sessions Tab 1 presents the disciplinary representation at engagement sessions held by participating institutions (see geographic location of data collection for list). Institutions are listed on the x-axis and disciplines on the y-axis, with the number of individual participants recorded according to their institution and discipline. Disciplines include: Sciences & Engineering, Social Sciences, Humanities, Library and information science faculty, Staff/Service Providers, and Medical. Please note service providers, such as campus-based IT staff and library staff, were included under Staff/Service Providers. Tab 2 - Table2: The 35 data curation activities as ranked by participants across six focus group sessions held in fall 2016. Detailed in Tab 2 are the data curation activity, rank, institution participant rankings, count of engagement sessions, average ranking, standard deviation*, total average rankings, mean, highest ranking, lowest ranking, range (high to low rating by institution). There is one note on the tab:”[1] Twelve activities defined by the DCN were not rated at any of the researcher engagement sessions; these were Arrangement and Description, Authentication, Cease Data Curation, Conversion (Analog), Deposit agreement, File download, File renaming, Indexing, Restructure, Selection, Succession Planning, and Transcoding.” Regarding this note, it was up to the discretion of the local facilitator which activities to include. These were not included by any of the 6 facilitators (co-authors) due to personal preference of what would be most relevant to their local researchers. Tab 3 - Table3: Overall Responses to Worksheet Question: Does this happen for you data? Data on Tab 3 are organized by data curation activity, the number of responses to the aforementioned worksheet question, percentage of “Yes”, “No”, “I don’t know”, and “Sometimes” responses, and percentage of “not applicable” and “not answered” responses. There is one note on the tab: “[1] In addition to the 12 activities not chosen for the card rating activity, the following three activities were not assessed with the worksheet exercise: Curation Log, Emulation, and Interoperability.” Regarding this note: It was up to the discretion of the local facilitator which activities to include on the worksheet (here space was a primary concern). These were not included by any of the 6 facilitators (co-authors) due to personal preference of what would be most relevant to their local researchers. Tab 4 - Table4: Overall Responses to Worksheet Question: “If Yes, Are You Satisfied with the Results?” Data on Tab 4 are organized by data curation activity, the number of responses to the aforementioned worksheet question, percentage of “Yes, Satisfied”, “No, not satisfied”, “Somewhat satisfied”, and “Not Answered” responses, and percentage and count of comments left. There is one note on the tab: “[1] In addition to the 12 activities not chosen for the card rating activity, the following three activities were not assessed with the worksheet exercise: Curation Log, Emulation, and Interoperability.” Regarding this note: It was up to the discretion of the local facilitator which activities to include on the worksheet (here space was a primary concern). These were not included by any of the 6 facilitators (co-authors) due to personal preference of what would be most relevant to their local researchers. Tab 5 - Table5: Discussion focus areas per institution Tab 5 presents Top Ranked Activities** per participant institution. There are two notes on this tab. The first: “** The top ranked data curation activities that were the focus of our discussions may not align perfectly with the actual top rated activities for that institution due to how the activity ratings were calculated in the session, on the fly and by hand. Yet, the five areas selected gave our group immediate feedback on their ratings and a focus for our following discussions.” The second, which regards Illinois and Penn State specifically: “* The identified areas are approximate based on notes taken during the session as the actual top 5 used in the session was written on a white board in the room and not explicitly documented.” Tab 6 - Table6: Very Important Data Curation Activities* vs. Level of Engagement and Satisfaction Tab 6 compares the very important data curation activities as represented by their rankings, and the responses detailed in Tab 3 and Tab 4. There is one note on this sheet: “The data curation activity Curation Log was also highly ranked at 4.1 out of 5 but it was unintentionally missing on the worksheet and therefore engagement and level of satisfaction results are not available.” ----------------------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: DCN2016EngagementEvents_CurationActivityCards_8x11.pdf ----------------------------------------- A full list of data curation activities and definitions is available as http://hdl.handle.net/11299/188638. Twelve activities defined by the DCN were not rated at any of the researcher engagement sessions; these were Arrangement and Description, Authentication, Cease Data Curation, Conversion (Analog), Deposit agreement, File download, File renaming, Indexing, Restructure, Selection, Succession Planning, and Transcoding. ----------------------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: DCN2016EngagementEventWorksheet.pdf ----------------------------------------- In addition to the 12 activities not chosen for the card rating activity, the following three activities were not assessed with the worksheet exercise: Curation Log, Emulation, and Interoperability.