Taking the Pulse of our Members: Creating a Healthy Data Services Environment Wendy Watkins Carleton University Michel Seguin Statistics Canada May, 2009IASSIST 2009, Tampere, Finland

Outline Structure of DLI Survey objectives Highlights – National – Regional – Regional differences Comforts and discomforts – Comfort levels – Discomfort levels Rx for future development

Data Centres in Canada Before DLI Closest Data Centre

Data Centres in Canada After DLI

Structure of Data Liberation (DLI) 74 post- secondary institutions 1 DLI unit at Statistics Canada (DLI Central) 1 DLI Contact at each Provides local data service 4 regions West Ontario Quebec Atlantic Provides support to Contacts Adds value to files in the collection Liaises with data-producing divisions Takes an active role in the training of DLI Contacts

DLI Contacts’ Survey (2008) Previous survey in 2001 Wanted to look at the following aspects: – Content of the collection – Peer-to-peer training program annual training held in each of the 4 regions national training held in conjunction with Cdn IASSIST travel expenses covered by DLI – Competencies in providing data services

Survey Objectives To illustrate how a census of Canadian Data Liberation (DLI) Contacts can: – assess needs of contacts in providing data services – assess the contacts’ satisfaction with DLI Central’s services to contacts collection training – identify self-assessed competencies of data service providers – provide clues to refining the training program to augment competencies relevant to providing data in an academic environment

Survey Highlights Final count was 66 of 72 completed contact surveys Atlantic 12 Quebec 12 Ontario 20 West 22 92% response rate for contacts allows us to treat it as a censusSurvey language used: English 78.4 % French 21.6 %

Average Years of Experience as DLI Contact Atlantic 8.33 years Quebec 6.33 years Ontario 6.55 years West 7.86 years Canada 7.27 years

Universities with Dedicated Data Service Atlantic 16.7% Quebec 41.7% Ontario 60.0% West 36.4% Canada 40.9%

Data Only Minor Role in Small Institutions

Uneven Mention of Data and GIS in Job Descriptions

Attend Annual DLI Training? Canada Yes86%Never 6% Atlantic Yes 75%Never 25% Quebec Yes 100% Ontario Yes 80%Never 5% (1 resp) West Yes 91%Never 0%

Overall Satisfaction with DLI Training (1=Not at all 5=Completely)

Comforts and Discomforts Respondents given 18 skill areas Asked to rate competency from 1 to 5 – 1 and 2 = Very competent, somewhat competent – 4 and 5 = Not very competent, not at all competent Combined 1 and 2 Combined 4 and 5 Created comfort and discomfort scales Marked differences between regions

Top 5 Comfort Levels for Canada (% Very competent and somewhat competent) Census 71.9% Retrieving aggregate statistics 60.0% Product knowledge 52.3% Retrieving microdata 50.8% Survey knowledge 50.8%

Top 5 Comfort Levels for Atlantic (% Very competent and somewhat competent) Census 60.0% Product knowledge 45.5% Retrieving aggregate data 45.5% Retrieving mcrodata 45.5% Answering data questions 36.4%

Top 5 Comfort Levels for Quebec (% Very competent and somewhat competent) Census 83.3% Retrieving aggregate statistics 75.0% Product knowledge 58.3% Survey knowledge 58.3% Using and interpreting data 50.0%

Top 5 Comfort Levels for Ontario (% Very competent and somewhat competent) Census 80.0% Retrieving aggregate statistics 65.0% Retrieving microdata 60.0 Answering data questions 60.0% Survey knowledge 50.0%

Top 5 Comfort Levels for West (% Very competent and somewhat competent) Census 63.6% Retrieving aggregate statistics 54.5% Product knowledge 54.5% Survey knowledge 54.5% Retrieving microdata 50.8%

Relative comforts

Summary of Comforts All regions fairly comfortable with the Census Comfort levels decrease with the complexity of the data (more comfortable with aggregate data than microdata) Atlantic contacts less comfortable than counterparts in other regions – Fewer than half feel competent outside the Census Quebeckers most confident of abilities regarding aggregate statistics

Bottom 5 Discomfort Levels for Canada (% Not very competent and not at all competent) Manipulating variables 18.8% Providing diff software formats 26.6% Data outside DLI 29.2% Statistical/data literacy 29.7% Retrieving geography 36.5%

Bottom 5 Discomfort Levels for Atlantic (% Not very competent and not at all competent) Manipulating variables 9.1% 71.9% Interpreting data 18.2% Retrieving geography 18.2% Providing diff software formats 18.2% 50.8% Statistical/data literacy 27.3%

Bottom 5 Discomfort Levels for Quebec (% Not very competent and not at all competent) Manipulating variables 16.7% 71.9% Statistical/data literacy 18.8% Providing diff sofware formats 25.0% Data outside DLI 25.0% 50.8% Answering data questions 41.7%

Bottom 5 Discomfort Levels for Ontario (% Not very competent and not at all competent) Retrieving geography 31.6% Manipulating variables 31.6% Data ouside DLI 40.0% Providing diff software formats 41.2% Statistical/data literacy 45.0%

Bottom 5 Discomfort Levels for West (% Not very competent and not at all competent) Manipulating variables 13.6% Providing diff software formats 18.2% Statistical/data literacy 22.7% Data outside DLI 22.7% Interpreting data 36.4%

Relative Discomforts “I don’t know my PUMF from my dummy variables and I’m feeling a bit synthetic”

Summary of Discomforts All regions not comfortable with – data manipulation – providing different software formats The more complex the data, the greater the level of discomfort DLI contacts have limited knowledge of data outside the program Problems with statistical/data literacy appear to be because of fuzzy definitions

Healthy Choices

Training Implications Different levels of service require different competencies Develop skills in increasing levels of complexity – Provide growth opportunities for everyone Make sure there are adequate community supports for smaller institutions Tailor the training program so that everyone grows Involve new people and ideas from outside regions in regional training – Explore internships, mentors, lists of experts Work with IASSIST and CAPDU to develop national training

Next Steps DLI Education Committee meets next month (June 2009) – Review on-line resource materials Survival Guide, Training Repository,, etc. – Initiate new Regional Training Coordinators – Review results of competency workshop – Develop curriculum plan to address gaps, build on strengths – Plan the next ‘Train the Trainers’ workshop for Nov. 2009

Questions?