Building a Culture of Data Sharing: Policy Design and Implementation for Research Data Management in Development Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pilot project worked with seven existing projects funded by the International Development Research Center of Canada (IDRC) to investigate the implementation of data management and sharing requirements within development research projects. The seven projects, which were selected to achieve a diversity of project types, locations, host institutions and subject areas, demonstrated a broad range of existing capacities to work with data and access to technical expertise and infrastructures. The pilot project provided an introduction to data management and sharing concepts, helped projects develop a Data Management Plan, and then observed the implementation of that plan. In examining the uptake of Data Management and Sharing practice amongst these seven groups the project came to question the underlying goals of funders in introducing data management and sharing requirements. It was established that the ultimate goal was a change in culture amongst grantees. The project therefore looked for evidence of how funder interventions might promote or hinder such cultural change. The project had two core findings. First that the shift from an aim of changing behaviour, to changing culture, has both subtle and profound implications for policy design and implementation. A particular finding is that the single point of contact that many data management and sharing policies create where a Data Management Plan is required at grant submission but then not further utilised is at best neutral and likely counter productive in supporting change in researcher culture. As expected, there are significant bottlenecks within research institutions and for grantees in effectively sharing data including a lack of resources and expertise. However, a core finding is that many of the bottlenecks for change relate to structural issues at the funder level. Specifically, the expectation that policy initiatives are implemented, monitored, and evaluated by Program Officers who are the main point of contact for projects. The single most productive act to enhance policy implementation may be to empower and support Program Officers. This could be achieved through training and support of individual POs, through the creation of a group of internal experts who can support others, or via provision of external support, for instance by expanding the services provided by the pilot project into an ongoing support mechanism for both internal staff and grantees. Other significant findings include: the importance of language barriers and the way in which assumptions of English language in materials, resources, services and systems permeate the entire system; that data infrastructures are poorly served by current funding arrangements and tools, particularly where they are obliged to seek continuing funding through project grants. There are also fundamental questions raised by the status of digital objects as "data". The concept of data is part of a western scientific discourse which may be both incompatible with other cultures, particularly indigenous knowledge systems. More importantly that discourse may be incompatible with values-based approaches that seek to respect indigenous knowledge through a commitment to retaining context. With the possible exception of the last finding, none of these issues are exclusive to development research. The Development Research context surfaces them more strongly through its greater diversity of goals and contexts. In many ways this project illustrates not that Development Research has particular special needs, but that it is a site that surfaces issues in policy design and implementation deserving of more consideration across the research enterprise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.085 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.061 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it