“What’s your problem?” Tables

Thursday, April 20
Maxwell’s Restaurant
2:30 – 3:45 pm

  • “Curating software with data: challenges & best practices” – Phoebe Ayers & Christine Malinowski, MIT Libraries
    At this table, we will share our experiences and questions to develop some common scenarios for software in data management consultations, as well as a list of questions and areas of uncertainty. We will then aim to create an action plan for developing a practical resource guide for librarians, covering best practices for software management as a component of data management consultations. The table leaders will bring a list of resources related to the topic, and, if time permits, we will also brainstorm possible reference interview questions and a list of considerations for researchers with software.
  • “Approaches to encourage the adoption of open science software tools in research labs” – Ana Van Gulick, Carnegie Mellon University
    The data challenge to troubleshoot at RDAP17 is how best to encourage research labs to adopt new open science software tools without interrupting existing lab workflows. At Carnegie Mellon, we are preparing to launch an institutional data repository that will be powered by Figshare for Institutions and which will include the capabilities to link operational data storage and collaborate on projects within Figshare projects, to link collaboration tools like Box and Dropbox and documentation and versioning tools like Open Science Framework, GitHub, and Jupyter notebooks. Other tools such as Overleaf, Mendeley, and arXiv as well as disciplinary data and code repositories are also becoming an increasingly important part of research. I’d like input from the group both on how best to market these tools and how to facilitate their integration into lab workflows…One ideal outcome would be to create a set of case studies and sample open science workflows that could be used to demonstrate to PIs the value and ease of incorporating open science software tools into their labs with minimal disruption.
  • “Methods for crafting effective curriculum evaluations” – Letisha R. Wyatt, Ph.D., Oregon Health & Science University
    I have developed a series of ten workshops to more holistically address “soft skills” related to working with data, including: data management fundamentals, data analysis & visualization, as well as other facets of research like comprehensive searches and source evaluation, scholarly communication, and developing efficient workflows. For those that complete the series, they will receive a travel award to use for presenting their “new and improved” research/data. Concrete outcomes for this table would be to (i) learn about effective methods/resources for evaluating the success of the curriculum (i.e., ask and receive useful participant feedback) [in order to] adjust the content and/or justify building this into a university course. What has worked at other places? Developing a draft evaluation tool would be excellent.
  • “Institutional liability for open data: How can we balance risk and resources?” – Elizabeth Bedford, University of Washington Libraries
    UW Libraries is developing a new open access data repository service, and we are finding that the intellectual property and security issues that surround the creation, storage, and sharing of data require that particular care be taken during policy and workflow development. There are two sides to the problem: 1. We need to establish a collection policy and internal workflows that ensure we are not providing access to sensitive data or materials that have intellectual property restrictions, and 2. We need to develop a user agreement and other policies that can help indemnify ourselves against any potential misuse of the service that exposes inappropriate materials, intentionally or otherwise…[T]his group could create a resource that gathers and makes public the institutional combinations of deliberation, workflow, and policy that allowed their repositories to function…The group could also strategize about starting a community-wide discussion on how best to mitigate liability in the context of sensitive data and breaches of intellectual property rights.
  • “User Interface and Experience Improvement for the Data Management Training (DMT) Clearinghouse” – Nancy Hoebelheinrich, Knowledge Motifs, LLC
    DMT Clearinghouse team would like to invite the RDAP attendees to participate in usability tests that will last about 15 minutes per person. The usability tests will allow the Clearinghouse team to understand potential usability issues with the current implementation of the Clearinghouse and to determine focused areas for improvement during the Clearinghouse’s second development phase. The DMT Clearinghouse was developed with seed money received in 2016 from the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Community for Data Integration. Members from the USGS, Data Observation Network for Earth (DataONE), Data Stewardship Committee and Data Management Training Working Group from Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP), Knowledge Motifs LLC, as well as Blue Dot Lab met regularly between April and October, 2016 in order to discuss, create, and implement the content structure and infrastructure components necessary to build the current revision of the Clearinghouse. The first implementation phase of the collaboratively developed Clearinghouse is operational and ready for people to search, browse and submit learning resources related to research data management.
  • “RDAP 2018 & Beyond”
    Come help us plan for 2018 and beyond. Bring your interest and ideas to help us develop an amazing program. Have ideas on how to keep the community vibrant and engaged in between summits? Share them here. Plan for the future, today!

Comments are closed.