1. What do we want?: reports from practising researchers in three UK universities Bruce Beckles University of Cambridge Computing Service David Spence (Reading and Oxford) Luis Martinez (Oxford)

2. Background Mid-2004, Cambridge: Post of e-Science Specialist, University Computing Service (UCS) created: …the UCS “champion” of eScience [sic] within the University, raising the profile of what is available. Late 2007, Reading and Oxford: Shared post (Reading IT Services / Oxford e-Research Centre) of e-Science Development Officer created

3. Problem It is difficult to be an effective champion of something if one does not understand its relevance to the community to whom one is championing it

4. Solution Understanding the work practices of a community is a pre-requisite to determining what is appropriate for that community

5. Methodology (Cambridge) Snowball technique to find interviewees: –Initial contact usually IT support personnel In-depth semi-structured interviews: –Interviewees promised anonymity –Usually just one interviewer (Bruce) –Usually just one interviewee; occasionally groups of 2-3 interviewees –Interview audio recorded where agreed

6. Methodology (Oxford) Focussed on those involved with e-Research Informal interviews: –One of two interviewers (David, Luis) –Primary focus of Luis’ interviews was research data management Also information gathered from websites

7. Methodology (Reading) Snowball technique to find interviewees: –Started from e-Research advisory group; initial contact usually IT support personnel Informal interviews and an on-line survey: –Only one interviewer (David) –All based on same fixed set of questions Second on-line survey to rank results: –Disseminated more widely within institution

8. Scope Institution No. of interviews (adjusted) Cambridge83 Oxford59 Reading40 182

9. Subject Areas InstitutionMathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Medical Sciences Social Sciences Humanities Cambridge1557110 Oxford25131011 Reading24097 64703018

10. Staff Type InstitutionStaff Type AcademicSupport Cambridge4241 Oxford509 Reading346 12656

11. Analysis (to date) Common categorisation of issues raised in each institution: –Partly informed by classification of “barriers” from e-Uptake/ENGAGE Simple count of number of (adjusted) interviews in which these issues have been raised

12. Overall Aggregated Issues Interviews: 182

13. Top 10 Overall Issues Interviews: 182

14. Across Institutions Percentage figures are the % of interviews at the specified institution raising issue

15. Across Institutions Percentage figures are the % of interviews at the specified institution raising issue

16. Sample Bias Cambridge: –Interviewers’ interest in training issues Oxford: –Interviewers’ interest in data issues (particularly Luis’ interviews) –Primary aim to find possible new collaborations for OeRC (“expertise register”) Reading: –Snowball seeded by e-Research advisory group –Interviewer (David) same as one of the interviewers in Oxford –Primary aim to discover current work and inform future strategy

17. Top 10 Cambridge Issues Aggregated Training needs: 86% Interviews: 83 123456 Figures in red are the ranking of that issue in the overall aggregated issues

18. Top 10 Oxford Issues Interviews: 59 123456 Figures in bold are the ranking of that issue in the overall aggregated issues

19. Top 10 Reading Issues Interviews: 40 12345 Figures in red are the ranking of that issue in the overall aggregated issues

20. Across Subject Areas Percentage figures are the % of interviews in specified subject area raising issue

21. Across Subject Areas Percentage figures are the % of interviews in specified subject area raising issue

22. Natural/Formal Sciences vs. Social Sciences & Humanities Percentage figures are the % of interviews in specified type of subject raising issue

23. Natural/Formal Sciences vs. Social Sciences & Humanities Percentage figures are the % of interviews in specified type of subject raising issue

24. Top 10 Natural/Formal Sciences Issues Interviews: 134 123456 Figures in red are the ranking of that issue in the overall aggregated issues

25. Top 10 Social Sciences & Humanities Issues Interviews: 48 12345 6 Figures in red are the ranking of that issue in the overall aggregated issues

26. Questions?