Abstract
When developing new products, tools or services, one always need to think about the end users to ensure a wide-spread adoption. While this applies equally to services developed at higher education institutions, sometimes these services are driven by policies and not by the needs of end users. This policy-driven approach can prove challenging for building effective community engagement. The initial development of Research Data Management support services at the University of Cambridge was policy-driven and subsequently failed in the first instance to engage the community of researchers for whom these services were created. In this practice paper, we describe the initial approach undertaken at Cambridge when developing RDM services, the results of this approach and lessons learnt. We then provide an overview of alternative, democratic strategies employed and their positive effects on community engagement. We summarise by performing a cost-benefit analysis of the two approaches. This paper might be a useful case study for any institutions aiming to develop central support services for researchers, with conclusions applicable to the wider sector, and extending beyond Research Data Management services.
Highlights
When innovators develop new products, the first questions they ask are about what problems the product is intended to solve
A similar policy-driven approach to research data management (RDM) services development was applied at the University of Cambridge (Open Access Project Board, 2014)
The initial top-down approach based on meeting policy requirements, without supporting users with appropriate resources (Pryor, 2012) and without trying to break down and understand the complex issues of research data management (Awre et al, 2015), failed to engage researchers at the University of Cambridge
Summary
When innovators develop new products, the first questions they ask are about what problems the product is intended to solve. The initial top-down approach based on meeting policy requirements, without supporting users with appropriate resources (Pryor, 2012) and without trying to break down and understand the complex issues of research data management (Awre et al, 2015), failed to engage researchers at the University of Cambridge. Our initial presentations were perceived by the researcher community as yet another new requirement or ‘checkbox’ activity, dictated by funders and the central University administration Without understanding why these policies were introduced, what problems they were trying to solve and without appropriate tools to help researchers improve their data management and sharing practice, researchers were disinclined to invest their time and effort in research data management and sharing. We needed to change our approach in order to engage the community and to avoid the risk of developing policies which will never be practically implemented
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
