2. Findings for section 3 of consultations with NSIs DwB workshop on accreditation Lausanne March 20, 2014 Brian Kleiner

3. 3 Section 3: Possible paths to facilitate transnational accreditation to national confidential micro-data within Europe

4. 4 Q13 : Would a metadata database help to facilitate transnational access to national official micro-data within Europe?

5. 5 Q13: Metadata database  Overall: 17 out of 21 in favor  Obstacles, qualifications, and caveats  Should somehow be connected to Eurostat  Resource challenges  What kinds of technologies could be used?  Noted benefits  Would eliminate language barriers  Single point of entry for metadata discovery  Would enhance use of official micro-data for scientific purposes

6. 6 Q14 : Do you think a central database providing information on accreditation and access procedures would facilitate transnational accreditation and access? If yes, would your institution agree to contribute updates on your procedures for this database?

7. 7 Q14: Database of accreditation information  Overall: 19 out of 21 in favor  Obstacles, qualifications, and caveats  Simple tools should be made available  Practical applications of rules might differ from official procedures  Tools for this and other databases should be integrated into a single technical environment  Noted benefits  Would allow NSIs to refine their own practices in relation to other NSIs  Could lead to greater harmonization of practice across NSIs  A database would allow policy-makers to see where things could be improved

8. 8 Q15a: In your view, would a standardized application form help generally to facilitate transnational access in Europe? Would your institution consider adopting such a form for cases where researchers from other countries request your micro-data?

9. 9 Q15a: Standardized application form  Overall: 15 out of 21 in favor  Obstacles, qualifications, and caveats  Form would need flexibility for national regulations and specificities  All procedures and bodies must be approved by Eurostat  Would adopt a standard form only if it covers own NSI’s form elements  For NSIs, external bodies regulate access  Noted benefits  Could simplify things for NSIs where multiple forms are used internally  Even if not adopted, it could serve as an example

10. 10 Q15b: Would you consider a future ESC-OS a possible suitable body for managing a standardized application form for transnational access? Such a form could be downloaded by researchers via a single point of access and redirected to country institutions

11. 11 Q15b: ESC-OS for managing data applications  Overall: 12 out of 21 in favor  Obstacles, qualifications, and caveats  It would have to be strongly connected to Eurostat  A downloadable common form will probably not be used in practice (not in the short- or mid-term, anyway).  Delegating responsibility for approving data requests to an ESC-OS might be difficult  NSIs should always have the final word on access  Noted benefits  It could facilitate the process of data access  It could relieve some of the pressure on NSIs in handling applications

12. 12 Q16a: Would you consider such a body suitable for maintaining a database of previously accredited researchers that could be consulted for speeding up transnational accreditation? In your opinion, are there any confidentiality issues involved in creating such a database? Would there need to be consent from researchers?

13. 13 Q16a: Database of accredited researchers  Overall: Only a few were very much in favor  Obstacles, qualifications, and caveats  Many NSIs do not accredit the researcher, but rather the project  Some NSIs accredit institutions, not researchers  Cannot rely on an external body  Would not speed up the process  Consent must be obtained from researchers  Noted benefits  Supplementary information about researchers is welcome  Would allow checking of claims of previous accreditation  Would increase transparency and add to trust-building

14. 14 Q16b: Would you consider such a body suitable for taking some responsibility for transnational accreditation on the basis of agreed criteria? This would mean that the ESC-OS would reduce the burden on NSIs by processing data requests for transnational access. (Note that the data would always stay in the hands of the individual NSIs or bodies accredited by these NSIs.)

15. 15 Q16b: ESC-OS making accreditation decisions  Overall: Divided views  Obstacles, qualifications, and caveats  Such an institution should be linked to Eurostat  Cannot delegate responsibility to another entity  Final say on access should stay with NSI  Would need an internationally respected process  Noted benefits  Processing support could be helpful  Would help to evaluate researchers from other countries