Welcome to C4: Data Sharing Across the

Disciplines

Terrence Bennett, The College of New JerseyJoel Herndon, Duke University

Shawn Nicholson, Michigan State UniversityRobert O’Reilly, Emory University

IASSIST: Wednesday, May 27, 20093:45pm - 5:15pm

Scholarly Primitive

Clickstream

Acuity

Decisiveness

Seizes

Scavenger

Opportunistic; seldom attacking

Data Sharing Across the DisciplineData sharing behavior

Terrence Bennett, The College of New Jersey

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

An empirical study

Data sharing behavior

Why do researchers share? Advance scholarship and inquiry Comply with ethical imperatives Support open access

Why might researchers be reluctant to share? Need for confidentiality Competitive advantage of secrecy Lack of infrastructure that supports sharing Too much trouble

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

Study: Data sharing in life sciences* Surveyed trainees in life sciences (and

compared with computer science and chemical engineering)

Results were disturbing 23% were denied access to published data; 21% were denied access to unpublished data 8% had denied requests from others for

access to data 51% reported that withholding of data had a

negative effect on research progressIASSIST: May 27, 2009*Vogeli, C. et al. (2006). Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: Results of a

national survey. Academic Medicine 81(2), p. 128-136.

These results raise new questions Are dissertators sharing?

Do dissertators in the life sciences share better than their counterparts in the social sciences?

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

Methodology

Searched PQDT database Restricted to PhD dissertations Limited to most recent five years Used PQDT controlled subject index (5

disciplines): Political Science Cell Biology Psychology Biochemistry Genetics

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

Methodology (continued)

Random sort of results from each discipline

Selected 12 from each discipline N = 60 (not a multinational sample) Coded for 9 variables related to

presence of data and availability of data for sharing

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

Research questions

Do abstracts and tables of contents accurately indicate the presence of data?

What is the nature of the data collected? Origin Functional category

Is data scarce? Valuable? Is data automated? Are there disciplinary differences regarding

dataset use, reuse, and availability?

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

Findings: abstracts and TOCs

Great variation in the percentage of author-supplied abstracts that indicate the use or availability of data collections

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

For detailed findings, be sure to visit us during the poster session!

Findings: data category*

Datasets are predominantly dissertation-specific

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

*National Science Foundation (2005), The elements of the digital data collections universe. Ch. 2 (p. 17-23) in Long-lived digital data collections enabling research and education in the 21st Century).

Findings: data automation

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

Findings: data availability

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

Conclusions

Dissertators in the life sciences may be slightly better than their social sciences counterparts in depositing data in repositories.

Dissertation datasets tend to be configured to serve only the immediate need of the dissertation; this leads to interesting questions for archiving and preservation.

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

Conclusions

Very few dissertators are embracing the open data movement.

Highly automated data collecting does not lead to increased data sharing, despite strong theoretical support for this result.

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

Further questions / next steps

IASSIST: May 27, 2009

Need stronger empirical data – larger sample; more disciplines; not limited to dissertations

Implications for saving/preserving/disseminating research data

Are disciplinary differences in data sharing behavior inevitable?

What is the role of librarians in promoting data sharing across the disciplines?