1 / 34

2012 ICPSR Membership Survey

2012 ICPSR Membership Survey. Official Representative – Designated Representative Feedback July 2012. About the Research Project. Current ORs and DRs were invited to participate Survey was conducted in April 2012 The response rate was over 40% resulting in 325 completed surveys

gannon
Download Presentation

2012 ICPSR Membership Survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2012 ICPSR Membership Survey Official Representative – Designated Representative Feedback July 2012

  2. About the Research Project • Current ORs and DRs were invited to participate • Survey was conducted in April 2012 • The response rate was over 40% resulting in 325 completed surveys • Subgroup analysis has been conducted on the results and differences noted where they exist

  3. Report Content • Key Findings & Implications • OR Profiles • The OR Meeting • ICPSR Product Awareness & Satisfaction • Use of Other Data Sources • ICPSR Summer Program Feedback • Interest in New Data Services

  4. Key Findings & Implications • The most common OR department continues to be the library followed by ORs based in political science and sociology departments; the most common educational background is a Master’s degree in library sciences. • The tenure served in the OR role is fairly short (half in role for less than 4 years). • ICPSR must continue producing multiple forms of outreach and training options including those aimed at educating (familiarizing) librarians about ICPSR resources and getting them comfortable in working with data. • Since librarians are natural promoters of resources, ICPSR needs to remind ORs frequently of the promotional materials available to them for their campuses as well as ICPSR training opportunities.

  5. Key Findings & Implications • A declining number of ORs indicate they have ever visited ICPSR in person for an OR Meeting. (Budgets will likely continue to impact ORs’ ability to attend an onsite meeting.) • ORs desire program content that is about ICPSR resources, using data in teaching, speaks to digital curation of research data, and helps them function in their role better in part by networking with other ORs. Pre-meeting workshops should be continued. • ICPSR should continue to hold onsite meetings as well as consider regional meetings, if financially feasible, in the future; it is essential that all meetings have a virtual component. • ICPSR should develop the program to ensure significant content is dedicated to practical application and training with regard to ICPSR resources and teaching tools, and with increasing content dedicated to the science of digital curationof research data.

  6. Key Findings & Implications • Awareness of several ICPSR tools is generally high, but past year usage trails awareness significantly. • About half of ORs have used ICPSR data for research or teaching, and only two in five ORs have held ICPSR workshops/orientation on their campuses. • ORs award ICPSR with high levels of satisfaction on all items measured, especially staff responsiveness. • ICPSR must continue to remind (train) ORs about its resources and tools to promote not just familiarity, but usageand/or referral. • ICPSR must continue to focus on responsiveness and evolution of its resources to maintain not only high levels of satisfaction, but also high levels of value to its institutional members.

  7. Key Findings & Implications • OR institutions utilize/subscribe to several other data sources. • ORs suggested many acquisitions/collection improvements, but were most focused on acquiring more international, economic, and health data; updating series data more quickly; and retrofitting older studies with statistical software files and SDA components. • ORs believe their institutions would be most interested in the development of data-related teaching tool products. • As acquisition strategies are developed, these data should be in the review. In addition, when datasets are acquired or retrofitted, more promotion should surround their release. • ICPSR should investigate still more products related to teaching with data in the classroom.

  8. Key Findings & Implications • About one in three ORs are very familiar with the Summer Program, and one in five ORs send participants regularly. • ORs continue to play key roles in communicating the Summer Program to potential participants. • Cost/funding potential participants continues to concern ORs. • ICPSR should work to improve awareness and understanding of its Summer Program across ORs. • ICPSR should research scholarship/funding sources for the purposes of directing ORs/participants to sources where funding may be found.

  9. OR Suggested Improvements • Make all datasets available in Stata, SPSS, SAS, xls, etc. • More data available in SDA • More international data • More economic data • More health data • More teaching tools (data in the classroom) development • More data curation (repository) tools, training, and products • Funding (or listing of resources) for Summer Program attendance

  10. Profiles – Official Representatives

  11. OR Length of Service • The average OR has worked at their current institution for about 14 years, ranging from one to 45 years served. • On average, ORs have spent about 7 years in the OR role at their institution ranging from just started to 37 years. • Just under half of ORs have served in their role for less than 4 years (46%). • Average length of service as an OR is similar to 2005, 2008, & 2010.

  12. Where ORs Work • Most ORs describe their work department as a Library (46%) • Nineteen percent (each) work in a Political Science or Sociology department

  13. Changes in Where ORs Work • Since 1988, more ORs indicate they work in the library with notably less working in social sciences departments. • The percentage of ORs based in the Economics department have increased since 1988. NA

  14. OR Educational Focus • The most frequently studied discipline among ORs is Library Sciences (44%); 21% cite degrees in Political Science, 19% in Sociology, and 8% in Economics • Note that degrees described as “Data/Information Sciences” increased from 2% in 2008 to 6% in 2012 • Most ORs have Master’s Degrees (55%) or Doctorates (41%)

  15. The OR Meeting

  16. OR Meeting Attendance • About two in ten ORs attended the most recent OR Meeting in 2011 • Approximately one in three have attended an OR Meeting in Ann Arbor (34%)

  17. Attendance varies by Carnegie Class • Extensive institutions (represented in the survey) continue to demonstrate the highest level of attendance at OR meetings

  18. OR Meeting: Future Attendance • Most ORs would like to attend the 2013 onsite meeting • Only 9% predict they will “definitely attend” in 2013

  19. Preferred Meeting Content • ORs prefer meeting content that revolves around use of ICPSR resources/toolsand its data collections • Sessions on using data in teaching and on data curation (data science) are also preferred

  20. OR Suggestions to Improve OR Meeting • Continue to conduct workshops the day before such as a mini data management course similar to the course by the 3 Amigos, online analysis, data curation, etc. • Consider a session(s) dedicated how to intrigue (train) particular departments to use ICPSR data (departmental promotion) • Include time dedicated to ‘formal’ networking across ORs (informal is not enough) • Though admittedly a challenge for the program committee, involve more ORs in program content or panels • Continue to offer OR meeting virtually since budgets and time constraints challenge onsite attendance

  21. OR Product Awareness/Use of and Satisfaction with ICPSR Resources

  22. Product Awareness & Use • OR’s highest ICPSR product awareness and use includes ICPSR webinars and the OR Web site • Note that use by ORs of these resources has declined since 2010 • MyClass garners the lowest awareness & use

  23. OR Interaction with ICPSR Data Half of ORs have used ICPSR data for research or in-class instruction Two in five ORs held ICPSR workshops on campus

  24. Interest Level in Potential ICPSR Data Products • ORs believe the highest level of institutional interest to be in teaching with data products and training • Secure data services (online) and catalog services (ability to list in ICPSR’s data union catalog) are also of greatest interest

  25. Satisfaction • Over half of ORs rated ICPSR with a 9-10 in terms of overall satisfaction (56%) with a mean of 8.4; satisfaction is similar to 2008 and 2010

  26. Use of Other Data Sources

  27. Other Data Sources for ORs • Roper Center • Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) • MPC: IPUMS; NHGIS • Sociometrics • UN Statistical Division • Data Liberation Initiative • Gallup Poll • World Bank data • Pew Surveys • Free IGO data sources • Social Explorer • American FactFinder • National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

  28. Acquisitions of Interest/ Collection Improvements • More international data; more data from Asian countries • Macroeconomic data, especially financial • More recent data (update series sooner) • More health data • LAPOP • IRS data • IMF data • Environmental/global warming data • Data on social media usage • Retrofit entire collection to include SPSS, etc. • GIS analysis capabilities • Provide xls files to read into minitab, etc. • Home mortgage data • Religion data • Immigration data • Latinobarometer

  29. The Summer Program

  30. Summer Program Interaction Most ORs have some familiarity with the Summer Program One in five ORs indicate they send participants regularly (every 2 years)

  31. Summer Program Impact About one in five ORs (22%) report that the Summer Program is a significant factor, among others, for membership in ICPSR Two percent indicate it is a primary reason for membership

  32. Learning about the Summer Program • ORs are a significant source of information for potential Summer Program participants • Faculty also play a large role in creating awareness as do potential participants

  33. Summer Program Assessment • About one in three ORs from institutions sending students to the Summer Program (32%) report that their institution makes no effortto assess what participants learn. • Across the 24% that put forth some type of assessment or follow-up, efforts are largely informal and qualitative: • ORs ask participants for testimonials • Participants are asked to take part in research groups who are updating their skills • Students asked to give a presentation about their experience

  34. Membership Overview – July 2012 • Membership in ICPSR consists of 715 consortium members • US academic member institutions are represented in every US state except West Virginia and Hawaii for a total of 394 US universities and colleges • 56% of institutions are affiliated as part of 46 Federation or National memberships

More Related