Abstract
In March 2021, Canada’s three federal research funding agencies introduced the Tri-Agency Research Data Management (RDM) Policy, with the objective of promoting sound RDM and data stewardship practices at research institutions. Among the requirements of the Policy, each post-secondary institution and research hospital eligible to administer agency funds was required to publish an institutional RDM strategy. This study presents a cross-sectional mapping of published institutional strategies (n = 211) in response to the Tri-Agency RDM Policy requirement. We extracted information pertaining to institutional characteristics, institutional needs, and support models for data management planning and data deposit. Our analysis of institutional strategies indicates that developing RDM expertise among researchers (84%, n = 177) and research support staff (61%, n = 129) is of high priority. We also found that most institutions did not describe activities to promote behavioural changes and foster a broader culture of RDM among researchers; only 6% of institutional strategies (n = 12) explored shifting incentives and rewards. A mapping of institutional RDM strategies is an important step to identify potential gaps in responding to the Policy. We find that further efforts are needed to address consultation gaps, resource constraints, and support for data management plans and data deposit to foster a robust and effective RDM culture at Canadian research institutions.
Résumé
En mars 2021, les trois organismes fédéraux de financement de la recherche du Canada ont mis en place la Politique des trois organismes sur la gestion des données de recherche (GDR), en vue de promouvoir de bonnes pratiques de GDR et d'intendance des données dans les établissements de recherche. Entre autres exigences de cette politique, chaque établissement postsecondaire et hôpital de recherche admissible à administrer des fonds attribués par les organismes était tenu de publier une stratégie institutionnelle de GDR. Cette étude présente une schématisation transversale des stratégies institutionnelles publiées (n = 211) en réponse à l'exigence de la Politique des trois organismes sur la GDR. Nous avons extrait des renseignements sur les caractéristiques institutionnelles, les besoins institutionnels et les modèles de soutien pour la planification de la gestion des données et le dépôt des données. Notre analyse des stratégies institutionnelles indique que le développement de l'expertise en GDR chez les chercheurs (84%, n = 177) et le personnel de soutien à la recherche (61%, n = 129) est une priorité élevée. Nous avons également constaté que la majorité des établissements ne décrivaient pas d'activités) pour susciter des changements de comportement et favoriser l’élargissement de la culture de la GDR chez les chercheurs; seule 6% des stratégies institutionnelles (n = 12) explorent la réorientation des mesures incitatives et des récompenses. La schématisation des stratégies institutionnelles de GDR est une étape importante pour cerner les lacunes potentielles dans la réponse à la politique. Nous estimons que des efforts supplémentaires sont de mise pour combler les lacunes en matière de consultation, remédier aux contraintes budgétaires et soutenir les plans de gestion des données et le dépôt de données afin de favoriser une culture de GDR solide et efficace dans les établissements de recherche canadiens. [ Ceci est une traduction fournie par l'auteur du résumé en anglais.]
Introduction
Over the last two decades, there has been a wide and growing interest in promoting research data management (RDM) policies and practices across interest-holders in the research enterprise. In a time where technological advancements facilitate data-intensive research and where attention is increasingly focused on research transparency, reproducibility and reuse, researchers are becoming more acutely aware of the need to manage their data in accordance with related policies on data deposit and sharing. RDM refers to specific tasks and responsibilities for how data are treated before, during, and after the research process (DRAC n.d.a), and is central to good scientific practice (European Research Executive Agency, n.d.; OECD 2021). Many research funders around the world, especially in the US (Holdren 2013), UK (MRC 2016), and Europe (European Commission, n.d.), have required data management plans (DMPs) and data deposit for grantees for several years. This is a growing international trend, although there is some variation in funder expectations towards the implementation of RDM practices and institutional engagement. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released its new policy in 2020 on data management and sharing requiring investigators to submit data management and sharing (DMS) plans, leaving institutions scrambling to gear up to meet expectations for greater demand for support among researchers (NIH 2020; AAHSL et al. 2022). Whereas the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) in the UK engaged institutions early on and required institutions eligible for funding to produce a roadmap that would align RDM policies and processes with funder expectations (EPRSC Policy Framework on Research Data 2011).
In Canada, the three federal research funding agencies, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) (hereafter the Agencies), introduced the Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy in March 2021 (Government of Canada 2021), with the objective of supporting Canadian research excellence through the promotion of sound RDM and data stewardship practices at research institutions. In the spirit of promoting a gradual culture change towards better RDM practices, the agencies are progressively implementing the Tri-Agency RDM Policy. This Policy outlines three requirements (Box 1). The first requirement is that all postsecondary institutions and research hospitals eligible to administer Tri-Agency funding must create an institutional RDM strategy, inform the agencies when this has been done, and post their strategy publicly. The deadline for institutions to comply with this requirement was 1 March 2023. As of February 2024, 211 institutions out of 251 had developed their institutional RDM strategy and notified the agencies. The motivation for publicly posting institutional RDM strategies is to better understand RDM capacity and challenges in Canada and to facilitate community dialogue and collaboration. There was an assumption that distinct institutional circumstances (e.g., institution size and research intensity) would create distinct RDM needs and capacity. The nonprescriptive instructions of the Tri-Agency RDM Policy with regards to the content of institutional RDM strategies were, therefore, intentional.
