Search results

Open research is predicated upon seamless access to curated research data. Major national and European funding schemes, such as Horizon Europe, strongly encourage or require publicly funded data to be FAIR - that is, Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (Wilkinson, 2016). What underpins such initiatives are the many data organizations and repositories working with their stakeholders and each other to establish policies and practices, implement them, and do the curatorial work to increase the available, discoverability, and accessibility of high quality research data. However, such work has often been invisible and underfunded, necessitating creative and collaborative solutions. In this paper, we briefly describe how one such case from social science data: the processing of the Eurobarometer data set. Using content analysis of administrative documents and interviews, we detail how European data archives managed the tensions of curatorial work across borders and jurisdictions from the 1970s to the mid-2000s, the challenges that they faced in distributing work, and the solutions they found. In particular, we look at the interactions of the Council of European Social Science Data Archives (CESSDA) and social science data organizations (DO) like UKDA, ICPSR, and GESIS and the institutional and organizational collaborations that made Eurobarometer "too big to fail". We describe some of the invisible work that they underwent in the past in making data in Europe findable, accessible, interoperable, and conclude with implications for "frictionless" data access and reuse today.

Broader impact of scientific research beyond academia has become increasingly important in research evaluation. To evaluate broader impact of research proposals, some funding agencies compose mixed panels that include peer experts and non-academic stakeholders. Whether and how non-academic reviewers bring any difference to panel discussions has been understudied. We analysed 164 review reports (2014–6) from the Investigators Programme (funding Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics fields) at Science Foundation Ireland, where two types of panels, with and without non-academics, were composed for impact assessments. We find that the mixed panel reviews were longer and touched upon broader and more concrete impact topics. Also, mixed panels commented on causality and attribution of impact towards characteristics of applicants and research process more than scientific excellence. A survey of the same reviewer pool supplements our understanding of the pros and cons of the inclusion of non-academic reviewers. We discuss some policy recommendations for funding agencies to organise review panels.

Universities in the UK, and in other countries like Australia and the USA, have responded to the operational and financial challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic by prioritising institutional solvency and enforcing changes to the work practices and profiles of their staff. For academics, an adjustment to institutional life under COVID-19 has been dramatic and resulted in the overwhelming majority making a transition to prolonged remote-working. Many have endured significant work intensification; others have lost – or may soon lose – their jobs. The impact of the pandemic appears transformational and for the most part negative. This article reports the experiences of 1099 UK academics specific to the corporate response of institutional leadership to the COVID-19 crisis. We find articulated a story of universities in the grip of 'pandemia' and COVID-19 emboldening processes and protagonists of neoliberal governmentality and market reform that pay little heed to considerations of human health and well-being. ; World Universities Network ; 18 month embargo removed due to COVID-19 subject matter - JG ; Update citation details during checkdate report - AC

Social Science Data Archives: A Historical Social Network Analysis