1. RDM training: stakeholders and sustainability
RoaDMaP
LEEDS RESEARCH DATA MANAGEMENT PILOT
RDM training: stakeholders and sustainability
Rachel Proudfoot, RoaDMaP Project Manager

2. Who: Working Group Who: Stakeholders What: Examples of training delivered and reaction (not content of sessions) How: Resourcing options
Broadly, the presentation highlights structures and activities which should help embed research data management training at the University of Leeds. It also reflects some of the comments and lessons learnt from the training we have delivered to date.

3. Training working group (WP7)
Central training
Faculty IT
(RoaDMaP)
IT trainer
Liaison librarians
RoaDMaP Project Manager
RoaDMaP Project Officer
Faculty hub training
Buy-in from a range of staff
Ongoing working relationships
Group will carry on short term
May be absorbed into other groups
We drew together a working group to progress the ‘Training and people’ element RoaDMaP – predominantly WP7. The small working group has members from the RoaDMaP Team, central and Faculty based training and the Library.
We discussed including either research students or academic staff but it was felt we would have difficulty getting regular attendance but we would consult on particular issues or training materials.
The group has been useful to pull together because it offers different perspectives on how best to approach RDM training and good knowledge of training opportunities which already exist at the institution. In particular, some of the members already have working relationships outside the group.
From an embedding perspective, the group increases the chances that the work of the group will continue into the future whether or not the current ‘working group’ continues.

4. Use established mechanisms and relationships
Sustainability
Training programmes
Use established mechanisms and relationships
Those directly involved in training (not necessarily RDM) provide a helpful overview of existing training mechanisms at the institution. It’s also possible to build on established networks. For example, Research Support staff received publicity about the training course ‘What do I need to know about research data management’ from a member of Central Research and Innovation Service – they were familiar with the name and the professional training programme under which the course was being offered. We had no difficulty filling places. There may also be practical support to draw on – administration, course booking etc.
Admin
Publicity

5. Who: Stakeholders Researchers Experienced PIs New PIs Supervisors
New staff
PhD
Support services IT
Research support
Library
Staff training
Finance
Commercialisation Services
Groups
Ethics committees
Senior managers
External
Funders
External collaborators
Like many projects, we brainstormed direct and indirect stakeholder in RDM training. We are still working through these groups consider how best to target them.

6. Knowledge and networking
Who: Stakeholders
Researchers
Experienced PIs
New PIs
Supervisors
New staff
PhD
Support services IT
Research support
Library
Staff training
Finance
Commercialisation Services
Groups
Ethics committees
Senior managers
External
Funders
External collaborators
We decided to prioritise early career researchers and PhD students with a view to designing a pilot course which could be re-used across different Faculties with little tweaking other than more subject specific examples. We have delivered two pilots courses for researchers to over 30 attendees: one in Engineering, the other to the LEAP hub.
A session for research support staff was run in conjunction with the DCC. Feedback from colleague suggested the combination of an opportunity for informal networking with colleagues and the draw of external presenters (from the DCC) would be very attractive.
Other events which are coming soon: IT Tea and Cakes (using a new network of training events), piggybacking on Funder visits to offer RDM training and awareness.
Course materials and comments online from RoaDMaP web site:
Pilot 2 hour course
Knowledge and networking
(Thanks DCC, Bath, Durham, etc)

7. A few lessons learnt
Designing training around practical activity worked well (creating DMP)
Think about capacity building – get colleagues involved / observing where possible
Consider what elements of the course are generic (& who could deliver) and specialised (& who could deliver)
Make up of group and most relevant messages – e.g. separate early researchers career and PIs?
“Every PhD should do this in their first semester “
(PhD student) .
“Not suitable for researchers or studies that are not funded.”
(PhD student)
We’ve learned a lot from our initial training sessions but here are a few thoughts. It’s a good idea to get several people involved if you need to scale training across the institution and consider, realistically, who could/should deliver different elements of a training course.
The feedback from the courses was largely positive with several participants suggesting the course was not only useful but would impact on their professional practice. Some participants took up the offer to go through a more detailed data management plan with the PVAC/ESSL Faculty IT Manager, Tim Banks.
There were a couple of participants who were less positive. For example, a couple of PhD students disengaged from the LEAP pilot training – in part, the emphasis on Funder requirements at the beginning of the course contributed to this. There were ways we could have made the message more meaningful by stressing future academic practice or counterbalancing the funder driver with reference to the University’s approach to making PhDs available online and whether there were data management implications in this context.
If resourcing allows, some separation of groups may be desirable to have more closely tailored messages.

8. A few lessons learnt: thanks, what now?
“Would be useful to have best practice advice on ...”
(Researchers) .
“There comes a point when you say, no more bloody post-it notes, just tell me what to do!”
(Librarian)
“I mainly want to know what I need to do to fulfil funder requirements”.
(Researchers) .
Any training raises expectations. It’s important to have follow on materials either online or other more focussed training opportunities.
It’s possible to feel training fatigue – when is the discursive approach appropriate and when would it be useful to have something more didactic? There is a relationship between training content/style and the level of maturity of the research data management service at the institution – for example, how well understood individuals’ roles and responsibilities are in the RDM context.
Try to create a meaningful context within which the participants can locate the training being delivered.

9. Sustainability
Use established mechanisms and relationships
Coherent content, participants and timing
Theory linked to practice
Training courses need to be timed in a meaningful way. Service and training should ideally develop in parallel and trainees enabled to implement training in practice. This is not always possible whilst the basic RDM service is still emerging.
“It’s important for training not to run too far ahead of implementing infrastructure and vice versa.”

10. Resource options paper
Similar model to ethics training at Leeds
Cost 60k (v. approximate)
Dedicated trainer
Faculty based RDM champions
Cost their time plus coordination
Faculty approach
3 pilot sessions
ULTRA twice a year
RoaDMaP+
No/low cost
Web information
Do no training
University of Leeds Teaching and Research Award (ULTRA)
Confirmed commitment
One outcome from the working group will be an options paper to the University’s Research Data Working Group outlining options for how training may be addressed, going forward. The demand for training may change over time – hopefully many elements will become embedded in standard practice.
Awareness Training Cultural shift Standard practice

11. Summary: constructing training
Timing
Content
Participants
Trainers
Get the combination right..
In summary, when constructing training, consider all these elements. Participants is an interesting facet of the training. For example, should you bring together professional groups – so participants who are broadly similar and may want to address similar issues – or do you bring together diverse groups so each can benefit from a range of perspectives on the topic (as we did in our White Rose event Perspectives on Research Data Management).
It may be that the mixed group approach is more appropriate when the basic RDM service has more maturity so that the end to end RDM process can be discussed in a more coherent way.

12. Summary: Sustainability
Use established mechanisms and relationships
Coherent content, participants and timing
Theory linked to practice
Resource
In sum, these are some lessons learnt by RoaDMaP which should help sustain training activity / resources into the future, well beyond the end of the RoaDMaP project (June 2013).

13. Acknowledgements
Thanks. RoaDMaP colleagues, Dr Jim Baxter, Dr Graham Blyth, Brenda Philips