Evaluate the outcome of activities taken in the implementation of RDM

The activities at Loughborough University with regard to research data management can best be described as evolving. However, even at this early stage, it was possible to evaluate some of the steps taken that have been identified in the data. These include events, activities, roles and responsibilities that have been previously discussed.

Firstly, considering the structure and agenda of the Working Group, it is remarkable that their work has

been initiated by one of the support services, namely the Library and set up together with the Research Office. In addition, it is supported by a representative from IT Services, the department of Information Science and the School of Civil and Building Engineering. It is worth noting the involvement of a researcher from the field of Information Science who can contribute with practical and theoretical.

Literature provides similar examples of initiatives in which the library took a lead (Steinhart et al., 2008;

Wilson et al., 2010) and showed their capacity mainly through assistance, support and dedicated services (Peters & Dryden, 2011); a contrasting example, where IT Services had the key responsibility (Wilson et al., 2010). Some authors (Williford & Henry, 2012, p. 33; Wilson et al., 2010) commonly agreed on the importance of institutional collaborations and crossing institutional boundaries.

Contribution of different representatives and their collaboration will ensure a comprehensive endeavour to help introduce and shape the new process, and this can be seen as best practice, given that a range of stakeholders can bring different but complementary expertise and point of views. Besides, the collaboration between the key stakeholders is significant for the development of strategic plans of the University and this was also aptly noticed by one interviewee. Furthermore, some interviewees observed that the Group needs a strong leadership, communication and a shared understanding. The findings indicate that leaderships and communication would contribute to the progress and success of the activities, which is clear if they aim to develop a strategic programme and proceed with further plans. Such joint forces revealed another strategic aspect that resulted from the analysis, a good reciprocal understanding and internal collaboration within the library; this was pointed out by Hswe & Holt (2011, p.

13).

In the second place, from the outset of the Working Group, interviewees stressed that researchers need to be part of the process, and this is supported by the literature (Martinez-Uribe & Macdonald, 2009). In fact, they are already two research representatives in the Working Group and, according to the results, further on their number could increase. It is worth noting that this involvement of researchers, although broadly stressed in the literature, is not always reflected in practice.

The Group shall address the requirement of EPSRC and other main research agencies to manage research data; however, as several interviewees aptly pointed out, their programme is developing gradually. The University will develop a policy about RDM and this resembles what other academic institutions are doing (Hswe & Holt, 2011). Further similarities can be observed, as the study showed that several services are already provided, and they have no single oversight; the same findings were demonstrated in (Peters &

Dryden, 2011, p. 397). Even if a number of persisting questions regarding centralised services were evidenced, these doubts were also exposed in the literature (Hswe & Holt, 2011, p. 16).

Given that research data management would be financed internally; therefore it is not surprising to note that most of the interviewees stressed the importance of having support from the University in terms of human, financial resources and recognition of senior management.

Moreover, as aforementioned, the University is a Framework University for EPSRC, which, according to the agreement between the funder and the institution (Engineering and Physical Science Research Council, 2012), implies that they provide an example to and share best practice with other institutions. In addition, the University has obtained support of the DCC to prepare the staff to deal with the RDM independently. This confirms the importance and role of external and national bodies that can provide guidance, resources and support to institutions. In addition, DCC is an example of support in the form of electronic resources that are available to all institutions nationally and worldwide. On the whole, it can be deduced that even without a financial support from outside, institutional and professional commitment can prove effective and should be recognised.

From the analysis, it is also clear that the interviewees expressed attention towards a range of requirements on various levels, like the needs of researchers, the institutional needs and those of stakeholders. The issues regarding researchers are further discussed in the next section. This shows that the local priorities are most highly valued and have to be outlined, understood and taken into account. All in all, this is a joined initiative that has come up to respond to the requirement of funding councils, as a shared understanding of issues and was based on a small scale study of research requirements.

Several of these considerations regard sharing, collaboration and international effort, which are increasingly common to libraries. In many instances, these elements seem essential to the implementation of RDM and, for instance, can enable economies of scale through collaboration between local higher education institutions to address some demanding issues, like storage.

On top of that, supporting examples can be found in the literature showing developments of initiatives to address crucial issues that are based on available resources, including materials and tools developed by other institutions and using staff and procedures that are already in place (Peters & Dryden, 2011;

Thomas, 2011).

To sum up:

RDM Working Group has been initiated by the Library and set up together with the Research Office; there is also a representative from IT Services, one academic school and one department Contribution of different stakeholders and representatives will help introduce and shape the new

process, and this can be seen as best practice, given that a range of stakeholders can bring different but complementary expertise and point of views

Two representatives of researchers are sitting on the Working Group and more could be involved The Group shall address the requirement of EPSRC and other main research agencies to manage

research data

Institutional support to RDM will be fundamental to help achieve a successful implementation According to the Framework Agreement with EPSRC Loughborough University will share best

practice

A range of requirements on various levels, like the needs of researchers, the institutional needs and those of stakeholders will be taken into consideration

6.1.4 Analyse whether/how users are going to be involved in the implementation of RDM