This is interesting and thanks for sharing, Danny. In addition to time considerations, there are a number of reasons for hesitating to move forward with data sharing, and likely many circumstances where research data cannot be shared, or where strict requirements for data sharing could limit the ability of researchers to work in some areas.
Some things to think about: Research data is not necessarily "owned" by the researcher and the rules of research funders and universities are not the only rules regulating use of the data. Some examples: In Canada, at least some researchers working with hospital data are working under the hospital's data rules. A local researcher is doing some very interesting work using government tax data. With this kind of data, summary results can be made available for groups large enough to permit confidence in confidentiality, but the raw data itself can never be made publicly available. There are many researchers who work with cooperating organizations outside the university - banks and businesses, First Nations, schools, law enforcement agencies, prisons, to name a few examples. In all these cases, the researchers' rights to the raw data per se are likely to come with stringent requirements on downstream release. Data gathered from human subjects, at least in my country, is gathered under conditions of confidentiality / anonymity (with some variations in strictness based on population type and nature of the research). This includes everything from quantitative survey type data which may be releasable under conditions of anonymity to in-depth interviews with populations too small to permit release of the data per se. The nature of the data gathered can be very minimal risk (surveys on what colours people prefer), or highly sensitive (e.g. interviews with rape survivors or illegal immigrants who could be deported to countries where they would be tortured or killed if the wrong information about them was released). My perspective is that the most effective way forward towards release of research data is for universities and their libraries to provide support and infrastructure. Data policies should be developed on a sub discipline basis with policy formulation led by researchers with careful consultation with others who have interests in the data. For example, in Canada many First Nations groups are expressing an interest in taking a leadership role in research conducted on and/or with their members, traditions, and lands. Data policy here needs to be developed on a project-by-project basis with appropriate researcher / First Nations consultation. Arguments can be and are being made that it is the First Nations groups that should be leading the research and consulting the researcher rather than the other way around. A one-size-fits-all approach to data policy development could end up blocking more university research than it releases. best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa Desmarais 111-02 613-562-5800 ext. 7634 Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
