the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods. In a nutshell, Open Science is transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks (Vicente-Sáez & Martínez-Fuentes 2018).
The concept of Open Science and the FAIR data principles have been embraced by the European Commission and incorporated into the European Open Science Cloud roadmap (European Commission 2018). A recent report examines the range of data skills needed to support the implementation of FAIR principles and distinguishes between research community skills, data science, and data stewardship (Hodson et al. 2018). The proponents of Open Data recognize that not all data can be open and acknowledge the need to balance openness and protection of sensitive data (European Commission 2016). Qualitative and personal data in social and health sciences pose many challenges for sharing. Some data can be anonymized and released while other data sets will need to remain closed. The European Commission promotes the principle that data should be “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” (European Commission 2016, p.4). Research data management is a critical component of opening and sharing data and determining the levels of openness.
ACADEMIC LIBRARIES AND RDM
The data-intensive research environment and the movement towards Open Science present new opportunities for library professionals. University libraries in many countries have been assuming leadership roles in promoting open access and offering services in RDM. Traditionally, libraries provided data services for their users by acquiring datasets and ensuring their discovery and access. The new environment challenges libraries to move beyond the traditional service roles of facilitating the discovery and delivery of information resources (Fearon et al. 2013). It encourages a more participatory role in the research process and the development of new services to actively support scholars in managing and preserving research data. The concept of data life-cycle plays a central role in developing and organizing RDM consultative and technical services (Carlson 2014). Librarians offer unique expertise in metadata and archiving, and add value at different points of the data cycle.
Academic libraries began to provide a broader range of data management services to support researchers in meeting the requirements of funders and publishers in the last decade. Academic librarians with expertise in RDM who support researchers in meeting funders’ compliance and preparing data for release are a vital part of the services. The development of RDM services and the roles of academic libraries in data stewardship have been the subject of extensive survey research (Cox & Pinfield 2014; Tenopir, Birch, & Allard 2012; Tenopir et al. 2015). The focus of this research was on the types of services offered by academic librarians, maturity levels, and plans for future development. The findings indicate that academic libraries mostly offer consultative services and training, especially for data management planning. Technical services that involve maintaining a data repository and support for data archiving were limited. Many researchers see RDM services as an extension of traditional academic library roles in outreach and training.
Most of the research, however, focused on academic libraries in the United States and the United Kingdom. More recently, Tenopir et al. (2017) conducted a survey of research data services in European academic libraries. The study indicates that more European libraries currently offer consultative than technical services, but also manage infrastructure for data storage and collaborate with other units on campus. Cox et al. (2017) expanded the coverage to seven countries and provided an international comparison of several aspects of RDM development, including policy and governance, type of services, and staff deployment and skills. The IFLA Data Curation project built upon this prior research and expanded it by providing an international and interdisciplinary perspective. The design of the study and the findings are reported in the forthcoming paper (Tammaro et al. forthcoming). The preliminary findings about the types and structure of RDM services were presented at the Association for Information Science and Technology conference (Matusiak & Sposito 2017).
IFA DATA CURATION PROJECT
The primary objective of the IFLA LTR project was to identify the roles and responsibilities of RDM practitioners working in multiple countries. The study also focused on the terminology used to describe the emerging practices and new professional roles. The study was designed using a mixed-method approach and consisted of three phases:
Comprehensive literature review and data mining to analyze the terminology used to describe the emerging practices and new professional roles
Quantitative content analysis of job announcements for data curators and RDM librarians
Semi-structured interviews with professionals working as data librarians, data curators, or research data managers.
The quantitative phase of the study concentrated on the content analysis of job announcements derived from a variety of library and information science job posting sites, including International Association for Social Science Information Services and Technology (IASSIST), and Code4Lib. The goal of the content analysis was to examine the titles, roles, responsibilities, qualifications, and competencies listed in the advertised positions. The data set included 441 job advertisements. Most of the analyzed positions (73.6%) were based in the United States. However, the data set also had some international coverage. The widest distribution came from Europe with 17 European countries in the sample.
The findings from the quantitative analysis of job announcements indicate a wide variation in titles used to identify positions. There was no single title standing out as a standard for the discipline. The most common titles included librarianship in some form, such as Data Services Librarians, Digital Scholarship Librarians, or Research Data Management Librarians. The positions were frequently advertised under a wide variety of titles often with additional data-related responsibilities, such as data science or data reference services. In the analyzed data set, RDM services were located primarily (84.2%) in universities and academic libraries. The range of responsibilities also reflects the influence of librarianship with the top responsibilities in public services including instruction, reference, and outreach. However, a degree in librarianship was required in only 27% of the job advertisements.
In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with professionals working as data librarians, data experts, datacurators, or research data managers. The goal of interviews was to gain insight into the practice of research data management and to examine the services from the perspective of the professionals working in the field. The interviews were conducted with 26 professionals from Australia, Canada, U.S. and six countries in Western Europe. The study participants were employed at 24 organizations, including:
Academic libraries (19)
Campus-wide research data service centers (3)
University departments (2)
Data archive (1)
Research center (1).
All participants held Masters degrees, including 15 had Masters in Library and Information Science (MLIS). Ten participants had PhDs in a variety of disciplines, including biology, environmental science, history, information science, medical informatics, or philosophy. The participants held different position titles although many of their responsibilities and job functions overlapped. Several participants, working mostly in Europe, did not have MLIS but had advanced disciplinary degrees and prior research experience. The variety of titles confirmed the findings from the quantitative phase of the study.
Despite the differences in position titles and terminology, the study found a sense of a shared purpose or even mission among the participants. The professionals across institutional and national settings emphasized that their primary roles and responsibilities involved assisting researchers in meeting funder requirements,