1 / 15

Incentives for Creating Archive-Ready Data Sets: Research Findings and Recommendations

Explore the motivations and challenges data producers face when preparing data for archiving. Learn about incentives, compliance, and the preliminary findings of a survey on data depositing practices.

hans
Download Presentation

Incentives for Creating Archive-Ready Data Sets: Research Findings and Recommendations

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. Producing Archive Ready Data SetsIASSIST 2006 Margaret Hedstrom Jinfang Niu Kaye Marz

  2. Compliance, Incentives, Motivation • Motivation • Data archiving processes are predicated on the assumption of some degree of cooperation between the producer and the archive • Research Questions • How much effort are data producers willing to expend preparing data for deposit? • What incentives might induce data producers to improve the quality of data and metadata that they deposit?

  3. Incentive study • Best case scenario: Researchers are required by their sponsor (NIJ) to deposit data in an established archive (NACJD) • Part 1: Survey of practice and attitudes • Part 2: Lab experiments • Part 3: Field experiments

  4. Survey and Preliminary Results • Objectives • Identify barriers to depositing data at ICPSR • Understand data producers’ attitudes about depositing data • Test hypotheses re: prior experience and attitudes about depositing data and incentive mechanisms • Identify potential incentive mechanisms for lab and field experiments

  5. Survey Population • NIJ-funded researchers • Recent depositors (N=58) Response rate 41.4% • New grantees (N=112) Response rate 27.7% • Total (N=170) Response Rate 32% • Experienced and Mature Researchers • 30+ years old (98%) • PhD (87%) • 15+ years of research experience (83%)

  6. Preliminary findings • Experience with depositing data and conducting secondary analysis • Only one-third have deposited data two or more times • Only 14% have conducted secondary analysis two or more times

  7. Incentives to encourage reuse and secondary analysis • If more data sets related to their research were available (67.3%) • If they could discuss the data set with the person who collected the data (41.8%) • If the data sets had better documentation (32.7%) • If the data archive provided more assistance with use of the data (30.9%) • If they received credit for the effort they invested in order to use the data (12.7%)

  8. Requirements and Guidance • 95% were aware of the deposit requirement • 31% were not aware of the NIJ Guidelines • 47% were not aware of the ICPSR Guidelines • Of respondents who were aware of the guidelines: • 72% found the NIJ Guidelines useful or very useful • 85% found the ICPSR Guidelines useful • 65 % of respondent did not know what DDI is

  9. Benefits of Depositing Data • It saves other people the effort of collecting the same data again (76%) • It increases the chances the data will be cited by other people, which will enhance my reputation (52%) • It saves me effort in answering questions about the data (38%) • As a social scientist, I routinely deposit my data in a public archive for the public good (36%) • It saves me effort in managing and preserving the data (34%)

  10. Incentives for Depositing Data • If I thought the data that I deposited would really benefit many other people (65%) • If depositing data was a mandatory to receive new funding from NIJ (50%) • If depositing qualified data counted as a citable publication (37%) • If other people’s citations of the data counted as citations to my work (33%) • If depositing data were a prerequisite for publishing a paper derived from the data (27%) • If I can get monetary compensation for depositing data(15%)

  11. Incentives for Improving the Quality of Data and Documentation • If I could get additional services from ICPSR (36%) • If the quality of the data collection that I submitted was visible to others (34%) • If data archivists would keep nagging me till they got the necessary information (32%) • If I noticed that most other data depositors provided better information than I did (17%) • If secondary users of the data would keep nagging me till they got the necessary information (11%) • If my data would be released sooner (6%)

  12. What would make depositing data easier? • More time and financial support from NIJ (64%) • Better tools (48%) • More training in preparing data for deposit (38%) • ICPSR could make the requirements shorter and easier (36%) • ICPSR could handle confidentiality concerns for me (28%) • Better guidelines for what the archive needs from me (28%) • On-site help from data archivists (28%) • Less staff turn over on our research project (12%)

  13. Preliminary Conclusions • Depositing data and using data archives for secondary analysis are uncommon practices • Researchers have inadequate support from funding agencies for preparing data and documentation • Researchers understand the benefits of depositing data for the larger community

  14. Next Steps • Laboratory experiments with incentive mechanisms that reflect researchers’ attitudes about sharing data • Field experiments with promising mechanisms • Recommendations to funding agencies

  15. Thank You Incentives for data producers to create archive-ready data sets PI’s Margaret Hedstrom Yan Chen Myron Gutman NSF Award # 0456022 www.si.umich.edu/incentives/

More Related