Research Data Toolkit: Assess Data Needs

• Need storage solutions for the active research phase of your research?
• Need to archive multiple file types?
• Need to preserve successive versions of the data?
• Have requirements for reproducibility?
• Need to give different users different levels of access?
• Want to distribute storage over servers in different locations (i.e., how disaster-proof do you want your data to be)?

• Want users to be able to do their own subsetting or analysis online?
• Need to provide access to researchers in remote locations access to your data while your research is in progress?

These kinds of requirements will generally demand complex data management solutions.

Think ITS, the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, or RENCI.

You will need substantial funding for these solutions and more extensive metadata.

• Need large capacity or high speed computing?

• Need to secure sensitive data or de-identify data?

Be sure to discuss this with the repository you want to use. Many repositories will not be able to offer sufficient security.

• Know how long do you need to store your data?

Consider how stable the repository is in which you want to deposit your data. What is its funding stream and sustainability model?

Ask about policies for moving your data out of that repository, especially institutional repositories. What happens if you leave the institution? Will they weed your data? Will they give it back to you if you ask? Will you retain the right to deposit copies of the data with other repositories once you've signed a deposit agreement with one?

• Know if other researchers need to be able to use your data when your research is completed?
• Know who would be interested in your data?

• Have questions or concerns about copyrighting data or data that you have licensed or purchased?

You should consult University Counsel about legal matters.

Note that there is no specific copyright protection in the U.S. at this time for data. The court case which most closely resembles advocacy for such protection is the one over whether the telephone directory was copyrighted, and it was held that alphabetic order did not constitute a sufficiently creative organization to merit copyright protection for that "data set."