[open-science] JISC research data/ HoL on Open Access

[Paola Di Maio]

(Peter, thanks for the last note- the discussion about the 'open
access martyrs' and the hypocrisy of our system, is not intended to be
directly related to the HoL, its another discussio altogether, but
below a more pertinent post  )

OK, here's something I think needs to be brought to the attention of the HoLs
since I am not sure these people are informed about the facts (which I
ll do my best to address)

I am curious to understand more about the JISC policy on reusing research data

How much public money has gone into funding JISC research so far?
(anyone has a figure?)

Where are the datasets?

When I  tried to access and reuse JISC data as part of my research
reference in a previous post,
I was told that I could not because it was destroyed. (see copy of
email exchange with Alma Swan,20011)
Subsequent exchanges with JISC director and other staff were
inconclusive (ie, their scant but polite answers evaded the questions
such as 'how come does  JISC not have a open data policy').


thoughts? comments? is this  useful evidence in relation to the consulation

cheers


PDM



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: research data
To: Alma Swan <a.swan at talk21.com>


Alma
thanks for reply
I am facing similar methodological challenges

it's a pity that the records were not kept in anonymous form, so that
they could be further analysed and the data manipulated .queried
differently

Isnt there a  legal requirement that research data record are kept for
a number of years?

it would also be interesting to be able to verify/cross validate your
findings, but without the original data, this will be impossible

I will then use your summary/conclusion as a reference

I must say that my own findings (enclose an overview of my research to
date) confirm your conclusions, however I have so far performed
limited field work, and was hoping to be able to re-use your data
(anonymous would also be Okay) to spare myself further data collection

I have looked at  openaccess map and the tracking project you have,
and would like to suggest that there may be a synergy with my work,
whereby I track/map open access in relation to the policy of the
funding body

wonder how can I meshup your data with my data, to produce further
insights into the landscape?
(currently looking at UK only to keep the scope manageable)

Finally, since you are obviously an expert, i wonder if you would
consider being interviewed  ( for an hour or so, over the phone, or
skype) to acquire further qualitative information in support of my own
research, outline in the enclosed paper, in the affirmative, i will
send you an outline of the interview questions/topics in advance of
the call

Thank you

PDM







On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Alma Swan <a.swan at talk21.com> wrote:
> Dear Paola,
>
> Thank you for your interest in the study. The methodology is included in the
> report as an appendix and is also attached here.
>
> The quantitative data that formed the basis of the work are from the JISC
> survey carried out some 12 months or so before JISC commissioned this study.
> The findings from that are attached.
>
> The qualitative data were obtained through a mix of in-depth personal
> interviews and focus group sessions. These were recorded as audio files to
> avoid having to have a note-taker at the sessions. The participants were
> made aware of this and their permission confirmed. This is how we always
> carry out such work and we always undertake to erase the files once the
> study is completed. The salient 'messages' were then distilled from the
> recordings to inform the analysis and the files were then erased, as
> promised to the participants/interviewees.
>
> As a matter of good practice, and to persuade people to participate in these
> exercises, we always promise both anonymity when comments from interview may
> be used in reports and the destruction of any audio recordings once they
> have been used. In special cases, where an individual is asked to make a
> statement to express a view on behalf of an organisation, permission is
> sought to quote them and to identify them, but the need for this is very
> rare. Most of our work of this sort is with groups of academic researchers,
> practitioners or business people, and anonymity is the currency in these
> instances. We are usually after a sense of the prevailing opinion on an
> issue, the majority view on things, and specific examples if people are
> prepared to provide them to illustrate their points.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alma
>
>
> On 01/08/2011 13:41, "Paola Di Maio" <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Alma
>>
>> I read with interest some of your reports on Keyperspectives
>>
>> I am researching the field from a slightly different tack (looking at
>> policies)
>>
>> I would like to learn more about your methodology for the report
>> linked below, and to take a look
>> at the raw data (basically the documentation for the interviews and
>> focus groups)
>>
>> Key Concerns within the Scholarly Communications Process(2008).
>> Commissioned by JISC.
>>
>> I may be able to perform further analysis of your findings, in support
>> of my own research
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> PDM
>
>