陳若玄

歷年優秀論文獎助 > 2022優秀學位論文得獎名單 > 陳若玄

研究生 陳若玄
研究生(外文) Re-Shiuan Chen
論文名稱 高教機構研究資料政策框架之分析與建構
論文名稱(外文) Analysis and Development of a Research Data Policy Framework for Higher Educational Institutions
指導教授 陳亞寧
指導教授(外文) Ya-Ning Chen
口試委員 黃鴻珠、黃明居
口試日期 2022-06-28
學位類別 碩士
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱 資訊與圖書館學系碩士班
論文出版年 2022
畢業學年度 110
語文別 中文
論文頁數 183
中文關鍵詞 研究資料、研究資料政策、研究資料政策框架、高教機構
外文關鍵詞 Research Data、Research Data Policies、Research Data Policy Framework、Higher Educational Institutions
中文摘要 隨著ICT的發展與學術環境的變化，研究資料成為新興學術紀錄之一，受到相關利益者重視。學術資助者及學術出版者／期刊開始發展資料政策，高教機構為了滿足相關利益者等外部要求及內部研究者的需求，亦發展高教機構資料政策。然而，現有研究僅將高教機構中的資料政策作為子主題，或僅調查政策中的部份議題，而未有研究全面調查政策項目與其內容、指出政策與其他重要文件的關係，或發展研究或報告建立高教機構類型的資料政策框架。因此，本研究採用THE、QS、ARWU、USNWR四種頂尖大學排名前百名交集之55所高教機構，透過文件／網頁內容分析法、社會網路分析等方式，瞭解高教機構研究資料政策之類型、項目、內容與其分佈，及其與重要文件之關係等，且根據政策項目與內容發展情形，指出政策的必要項、建議項與選用項，進而建構高教機構資料政策之框架。
根據調查結果，超過七成（40所，72.73%）的高教機構已針對研究資料相關議題專門設立資料政策。內容分析共採39份政策為研究對象，其中有33份獨立式政策及6份隸屬式政策，主要研究結果如下：
1. 未設立高教機構資料政策可能的原因包含國情不同、參與聯盟、尚在發展、缺乏國家強制力、發展困難及發展歷史較短暫等。
2. 在資料政策受到外部重要文件影響的關係方面，以國際或國家推動力（22項，55%）為主。在參見關係方面，資料政策參見機構內部重要文件主要包括IPR、研究行為、安全、高教機構紀錄保存等主題，及參見機構外部重要文件包括資助者、隱私權和研究行為等。
3. 高教機構資料政策之題名具備五項特質，包含名稱資料類型化、名稱編碼化、名稱機構化、名稱規範化，及名稱主題化。
4. 高教機構資料政策基礎保存時間的眾數為三年，在外部規範、研究遭到控訴，或為了保護IPR等情況時，保存時間將延長。
5. 高教機構資料政策將資料擁有權歸屬於高教機構，資料保管權歸屬於PI。在必要情況下，高教機構有權取得所有資料的保管權限。
6. 高教機構資料政策有政策陳述模糊及規範不一致等情形。部份政策透過設立行政細則、程序或學科型資料政策等方式，以取得政策規範彈性與具體程度間的平衡。
7. 在RDM的學科領域特性方面，高教機構資料政策的應對方式有三種：要求設立符合學科領域特性的學科型資料政策、指派院系的RDM指導員，及研究者自行面對。
8. 高教機構資料政策之項目可分為一般、規畫、資料託管、監控等四種類別。必備項包含一般類別中的適用範圍、宗旨與目的、重要名詞定義、角色與職責，規畫類別中的資料權利，及資料託管類別的儲存與保存。建議項包含一般類別中的實施與解釋，規畫類別中的DMP，資料託管類別中的可取用性、處置與銷毀。選用項包含規畫類別的成本與風險管理，資料託管類別的引用、被引用與出版，監控類別的相關議題及倫理審查，及其他。
9. 高教機構資料政策為滿足資助者、學術出版者資料政策等要求，因此政策涵蓋的面向最為廣泛。學術出版者資料政策聚焦於資料共享、DAS、資料引用、同儕評鑑等，資助者資料政策則聚焦於DMP、資金、成本、取用、共享等。
換言之，本研究之貢獻包含（1）提出高教機構資料政策的類型，及（2）資料政策與重要文件之關係，（3）完成高教機構、學術出版者與資助者資料政策之比較，（4）建構高教機構資料政策之框架，且探討政策之類別、項目、內容與其分佈，及（5）提出高教機構資料政策題名之五種特質與其結構。
外文摘要 In terms of evolving scholarly records, research data has gained attention from various stakeholders. Funders, publishers, and journals have formulated research data policies to mandate researchers for data management and sharing. Higher educational institutions (HEIs) have also developed data policies for external and internal requirements. To our best knowledge, no study has comprehensively investigated HEI data policies, including elements, categories, types, relationships between data policy and other documents, and framework. The study collected information on the 55 HEIs from THE, QS, ARWU, and USNWR. Finally, 39 data policies were selected as subjects to be examined through content analysis. The findings of this study are addressed as follows:
1. Probable reasons for no data policies: (1) varying country conditions, (2) federation membership, (3) ongoing development process, (4) lack of national mandate, (5) obstacles, and (6) short development history.
2. In terms of the source of external documents, international and national influences primarily affect HEI’s data policies (55%). In the “see also” relationship between HEI’s data policies and other external documents, funder policies/statements, privacy laws, and the research code of conduct are higher reference sources. In contrast, IPR, research conduct, security, and preservation of HEI records are primary internal reference sources for HEI’s data policies.
3. Five characteristics are embedded in the naming of HEI’s data policy titles: (1) data typification, (2) codification, (3) institutionalization, (4) standardization, and (5) topicalization.
4. The general retention period is five years. It may be longer in the case of terms defined by external documents, research misconduct charges, or IPR protection.
5. The ownership of research data belongs to HEIs, whereas custodianship belongs to PI. HEI has the custodianship when research misconduct is charged or under other necessary circumstances.
6. Ambiguous or inconsistent statements are presented in HEI data policies. Some policies have established (or planned) detailed administrative enforcement rules, regulations, or subject data policies to balance flexibility and enforcement of data policies.
7. In response to specific characteristics resulting from discipline, HEI data policies have provided three options for the aforementioned requirements as follows: (1) developing discipline data policies, (2) positioning an advisor in every school to build the best RDM practices in the discipline, and (3) letting researchers face the challenge themselves.
8. Category of HEI data policy can be divided into four types: general, planning, data stewardship, and monitoring. Furthermore, the data policy elements can be classified as follows:
- Mandatory: application, aims/objectives, definitions, roles and responsibilities, data rights, and storage and retention
- Recommended: implementation, DMP, accessibility, and disposal and destruction
- Optional items: cost and risk management, citation and publication, ethics reviews, and related issues
9. Compared with publishers and funders, HEI data policies have more comprehensive elements to fulfill requirements derived from external and internal stakeholders. On the other hand, academic publishers’ data policies concentrate on data sharing, data availability statements, data citation, and peer reviews, whereas funders’ policies focus on DMP, funding, cost, data access, and sharing.

In conclusion, the principal contributions of the study are as follows:
1. Types of HEI data policies are proposed.
2. The relationship between data policies and other vital documents are classified into four types as follows: influence, reference, adaptation, and conflict
3. A comparison of data policies between HEIs, academic publishers, and funders is investigated.
4. The framework of HEI data policies, its categories elements, and their distribution are addressed.
5. Five characteristics embedded in the naming of HEI’s data policy titles are provided.
連結 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統

 

Copyright © 2024 中華民國圖書館學會  |   All Rights Reserved