2. Findings for section 2 of consultations with NSIs DwB workshop on accreditation Lausanne March 20, 2014 Stefan Buerli

3. Section 2: Components and requirements for a possible standardized application form for confidential national micro-data in Europe

4. Components  Information on the researcher (or team of researchers): e.g., name, title, institution affiliation, institution type and address, researcher’s address, mail, phone; name of principal investigator and name of contact person  Place(s) where the data will be accessed/processed (for remote access): e.g., name, address, and type of institution; how the institution provides for data security  Requested datasets: e.g., name of datasets, years requested; specific variables requested and reasons for requiring access to these variables  Research project: e.g., description, objectives, and methodology of study; whether it is a project that follows up on a previous project that used the same micro-data; whether the project has been evaluated/funded by a research agency  Justification for needing highly detailed micro-data: e.g., because available files (Scientific Use Files, Public Use Files, aggregate data…) do not allow for addressing research questions of interest

5. Q6 : In general, would you consider that these five components could be the adequate basis for a standardized application form? If no, what is missing? Are any of these unnecessary?

6. Q6: Required components  Overall: the five components are sufficient as basis  What’s missing?  Planned form publication, means of dissemination  Safe settings for the data  Project runtime, schedule calendar  Breaches of contract  Greater benefit (societal, scientific, practical...) of the project  Remarks  Data security and safe settings seem to have high priority  Legal aspects in the contract, not in the application form

7. Q7a : Would you agree to have a single application form for a whole project team?

8. Q7a: Single application form  Overall: all interviewees are in favor  Caveats  Some information on the individual researchers/data users is still needed  All the researchers should be aware of the duty to respect confidentiality rules  France: multiple application forms are needed when the team members are from different institutions

9. Q7b: Would you require having information only on researchers who will actually access the requested micro-data? Or rather would you require information on all involved in the research project?

10. Q7b: Information on researchers  Overall: vast majority only needs information on researchers who will access the data Detailed information on every researcher is generally considered neither necessary nor desired  Caveats  It must be ensured that additional users will be reported to the NSI  Exception  Information on an administrative reference person or a duly designated representative of the institution, as well as the PI, is also requested, even if they do not necessarily access the data

11. Q7c: Would you require information about the previous experience of researchers in using micro-data? If yes, what information?

12. Q7c: Previous experience  Overall: 7 out of 21 in favor  Reasons  help to understand the background of a researcher and his/her qualifications  lessen the probability of misinterpretation of data  Assessment  Some appreciation of SDC (disclosive aggregates)  Previous accreditations  Publications  Previous experience with statistical software tools  Familiarity with Statistical Disclosure issues  Experience with data manipulation  Use of statistics released by Eurostat or NSI

13. Q7d: Would you agree that a single application can be submitted in the name of the research team? If not, could it be in the name of an institution? If in the name of an institution, which one, in case researchers are affiliated to different institutions?

14. Q7d: Single application  Overall: all are in favor of a single institution  Caveats  In few cases, it can be a research team only  In general, institutional backing due to legal considerations  The modalities however differ greatly  Contract of confidentiality with all institutions whose researchers actually plan to work with the micro data  Seems crucial that the researchers are legally bound to confidentiality  Exceptions  Single contract of confidentiality with a consortium of all institutions  Single application in the name of the institution that is represented by the head researcher

15. Q8a: What information would you require, if any, about the institutions the researchers are affiliated with?

16. Q8a: Information on institutions  Overall: all in favor Since the institution is generally the main contractual partner of the NSIs, information on the institution is crucial.  Requirements  official full name of the entity, short name – acronym, English name, postal address, web address, country  Legal status, organizational chart, purpose of the entity  Research activities in the entity  Additional information  Data security safeguards, IT security, placement of the SD Box  internal regulations for access and management of datasets  dissemination system  organizational and financial arrangements for this project  duly designated representative  previous record and level in SDC techniques  clear track history of the entity

17. Q8b: Do you think that institutions should be formally accredited in order to grant access to data? If yes, at what level (e.g., whole institution, institute)?

18. Q8b: Formal accreditation of institutions  Overall: Each NSI has its own view and/or policy  For some NSIs, institutions are considered to be more stable and therefore more valid bodies for contracts in case of breaches. They are considered to be formally responsible for the appropriate use of the data. In case of (deliberate) violation of the rules for not revealing private information, at least the faculty or else the whole university should be excluded for using data for a certain period.  Five interviewees do not think it’s necessary for institutions to be formally accredited, either for legal reasons (i.e., to engage the legal responsibility of the end user, not the institution) or because the assessment of data requests is based primarily on the project and is processed case by case.

19. Q8c: Would you require information about all institutions from which the data are accessed or only one of these? Which one in this case?

20. Q8c: Information about all institutions  Eleven interviewees answered that they require information about all institutions from which the data will be accessed.  If that is not the case, information is required either only from the leading house of the project, the institution of the principal investigator, or the institution that requested the data.

21. Q9a: Should researchers be able to request data from more than one survey within the same application form? Or should it be one application for each specific survey?

22. Q9a: More than one data source  Overall: in favor  Remarks  Already the case  Crucial point is the relevance of the data to the research project  Fewer burdens on the researchers and more manageable by the NSI

23. Q9b: What other information about datasets would be necessary?

24. Q9b: Other information about datasets  Five NSIs: no other information or more specific.  Importance of rich and clear metadata in order to make it easier for the researchers to decide on what data to request  The other NSIs may require or include in a standard application form one or a combination of the following: The ending date of the data use Name of datasets, exact variables Years requested, reference time, waves of the surveys Specific variables requested and reasons for requiring access to these variables Access mode Required formats, software Metadata Level of anonymization (if available)

25. Q10: What would be the ideal length for the overall project description (e.g., number of pages/characters)?

26. Q10: Ideal length of the project description  Overall: as concise as possible  One to two pages A4, even if in most cases NSIs are flexible in this regard and state no precise indication in the application form  Focus on the content, not length  Technical and statistical details can be added in a supplement or a different section

27. Q10a: Besides the project description, objectives and methodology, what additional specific information should be required?

28. Q10a: Additional specific information  Information on the planned output, the expected publications, the dissemination of the results, and possibly even about the archiving of project achievements (customized datasets, documentation). Publication is considered necessary to ensure that the results of the research will be widely accessible, not just, for example, provided privately to a client.  Background information on the project  Data security and the calendar of work

29. Q11a: Is justification necessary at your institution for data requests?

30. Q11a: Justification  Overall: for the majority, justification is useful/necessary  In most cases, it is an individual element of the application, but in a few cases justification does not have to be very elaborate and can be part of the general description.  For five NSIs, a justification is not necessary at the moment but would be a welcome addition or is already planned  Four NSIs do not ask for a justification unless the request seems to be completely off the wall and a waste of time.

31. Q11b: If yes, how is the justification evaluated?

32. Q11b: Evaluation of justification  The criteria of evaluation differ very much from one NSI to another  In general, if another primary data source is available for the scope of the research, permission to access confidential data is generally not granted.  In a few cases, there are no general criteria or the criteria are not explicit (e.g., are evaluated during researcher consultations or integrated into the project description).  Several NSIs have experts in the specific domain who evaluate the justification with regard to scientific interest, necessity to use the requested data, and methodology or specificity of the survey(s).  Before turning down a request, NSIs generally tend to ask for more information if the justification is considered insufficient. In Switzerland, in cases of large-scale projects that request large quantities of data, the NSI may ask data requestors to come to present the project.

33. Q12: Would you be interested in collaborating on such a “standardized application form” for transnational access to national official micro-data?

34. Q12: Collaboration on the application form  Overall: a large majority in favor  Obstacles  Necessary resources or workload  Legal obstacles not allowing transnational access  National specificities

35. Conclusion  A harmonized standard application form is of interest to a majority of NSIs  The different application forms are based on the same components  Differences in the weighting and the assessment of each component  Possible solution: a common harmonized trunk with optional and/or additional information to be implemented according to the needs of the individual NSIs

36. Thank you for listening!