Collaborative Research Data Afterlives: The long-term impact of NSF Data Management Plans on data archiving and sharing for increased access

2011年，国家科学基金会开始要求所有受资助的项目提供数据管理计划(DMP)，以确保项目数据、计算机代码和方法程序可供其他科学家未来使用。然而，这些数据管理要求在多大程度上导致更多和更好地利用项目数据仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。因此，该项目调查了国家科学基金会作为国家科学政策的DMP任务，并审查了这一政策对国家科学基金会资助的五个学科的战略样本的广泛影响。它考虑了各领域数据管理计划的组织和结构、参与数据共享的机构、数据保存做法、数据管理计划使其他人能够在多大程度上利用次级项目数据、以及确保数据可持续和可供使用的数据治理和保存做法的种类。对不同领域的DMP和数据共享文化的影响进行系统调查，将有助于资助机构和研究科学家通过确定数据存档、共享和获取的障碍，努力产生可复制和开放的科学。主要调查人员将利用项目调查结果，为从事科学数据工作的信息专业人员制定数据治理准则，并阐明科学界使用DMP进行数据管理的最佳做法。本项目旨在提高对数据管理计划(DMP)在塑造数据生命周期中所起作用的理解。为此，它研究了由国家科学基金会资助的五个领域的DMP，以了解数据实践、归档和访问问题、支持数据共享和重复使用的基础设施，以及其他研究人员后来使用项目数据的程度。在第一阶段，调查人员将收集代表来自不同科学领域的广泛数据类型和数据保留做法的DMP的战略样本。第二阶段包括对项目管理计划的子集进行取证数据分析，以发现项目数据的变化。第三阶段通过定性访谈和档案文件分析，对研究项目数据的生命周期和死后数据进行详细的案例研究，以帮助制定可持续的数据保存、获取和共享的最佳做法。第四阶段将把调查结果转化为对利益相关者的数据治理建议。因此，该项目有助于对科学数据生产和流通的当代研究，同时评估DMPs作为一项影响不同科学界数据管理做法的国家科学政策倡议的效果。比较研究设计和混合方法使跨领域的跨学科数据实践和数据文化的理论建设成为可能，并推动数据研究、信息管理研究和科学技术研究领域的知识进步。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的智力优势和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

In 2011, the National Science Foundation began requiring that all funded projects provide data management plans (DMPs) to ensure that project data, computer codes, and methodological procedures were available to other scientists for future use. However, the extent to which these data management requirements have resulted in more and better use of project data remains an open question. This project thus investigates the National Science Foundation’s DMP mandate as a national science policy and examines the broad impacts of this policy across a strategic sample of five disciplines funded by the National Science Foundation. It considers the organization and structure of DMPs across fields, the institutions involved in data sharing, data preservation practices, the extent to which DMPs enable others to use secondary project data, and the kinds of data governance and preservation practices that ensure that data are sustained and accessible. Systematic investigation of the impact of DMPs and data sharing cultures across fields will assist funding agencies and research scientists working to produce reproducible and open science by identifying barriers to data archiving, sharing, and access. The principal investigators will use project findings to develop data governance guidelines for information professionals working with scientific data and to articulate best practices for scientific communities using DMPs for data management. This project aims to enhance understanding of the role data management plans (DMPs) play in shaping data lifecycles. It does so by examining DMPs across five fields funded by the National Science Foundation to understand data practices, archiving and access issues, the infrastructures that support data sharing and reuse, and the extent to which project data are later used by other researchers. In phase I, the investigators will gather a strategic sample of DMPs representing a wide range of data types and data retention practices from different scientific fields. Phase II consists of forensic data analysis of a subset of DMPs to discover what has become of project data. Phase III develops detailed case studies of research project data lifecycles and data afterlives with qualitative interviews and archival documentary analysis to help develop best practices for sustainable data preservation, access, and sharing. Phase IV will translate findings into data governance recommendations for stakeholders. The project thus contributes to research about contemporary studies of scientific data production and circulation while assessing the effect of DMPs as a national science policy initiative affecting data management practices in different scientific communities. The comparative research design and mixed methods enables theory building about cross-disciplinary data practices and data cultures across fields and advances knowledge within data studies, information management studies, and science and technology studies.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.