920

Research Data Management Services 
in Academic Libraries in the US: 
A Content Analysis of Libraries’ 
Websites 

Ayoung Yoon and Teresa Schultz*

Examining landscapes of research data management services in aca-
demic libraries is timely and significant for both those libraries on the 
front line and the libraries that are already ahead. While it provides overall 
understanding of where the research data management program is at 
and where it is going, it also provides understanding of current practices 
and data management recommendations and/or tool adoptions as well 
as revealing areas of improvement and support. This study examined 
the research data (management) services in academic libraries in the 
United States through a content analysis of 185 library websites, with 
four main areas of focus: service, information, education, and network. 
The results from the content analysis of these webpages reveals that 
libraries need to advance and engage more actively to provide services, 
supply information online, and develop educational services. There is also 
a wide variation among library data management services and programs 
according to their web presence. 

Introduction
The importance of research data management has been emphasized over the past few 
decades. Tenopir et al. argue that, as science grows and moves toward more collabora-
tive, data-intensive, and computational research, researchers are faced with various 
data management needs.1 Research data management is also mandated for scholarly 
researchers.2 Despite this, many researchers are unprepared for or lack sufficient time 
to handle the requirements of data management.3 Researchers also have a number of 
concerns about data management issues, such as data storage, integrity, and backup 
options.4 Keil thus argues the researchers will need the help of a team of experts.5 

As a response to researchers’ need and request for help with data management, 
academic libraries have been actively involved in research data services: that is, “ser-
vices that address the full data lifecycle, including the data management plan, digital 

* Ayoung Yoon is an Assistant Professor in the School of Informatics and Computing, Department of 
Library and Information Science, at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI); e-mail: 
ayyoon@iupui.edu. Teresa Schultz is a Scholarly Communication Librarian at the University of Nevada, 
Reno; e-mail: teresas@unr.edu. ©2017 Ayoung Yoon and Teresa Schultz.

doi:10.5860/crl.78.7.920

mailto:ayyoon@iupui.edu
mailto:teresas@unr.edu
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.7.920


Research Data Management Services in Academic Libraries in the US  921

curation (selection, preservation, maintenance, and archiving), and metadata creation 
and conversion.”6 Tenopir et al. argue that libraries may be ideal centers for research 
data services; thus, libraries’ involvement throughout the data lifecycle is vital to knowl-
edge creation, which is one of the core missions of academic libraries.7 Furthermore, 
the Association of College and Research Libraries’ Research Planning and Review 
Committee has identified data curation as one of the top trends for libraries in 2012 
with collaboration with research communities, which demonstrates the importance 
of libraries’ involvement in the data lifecycle and in interactions with researchers.8 

Although libraries are aware of their potential role in and impact on research data 
management and curation and have started providing (or planning) data management 
services, not all libraries are in the same phase due to the different perceptions and 
needs related to data management at the institutional level, which vary with institu-
tional capacity (and/or boundaries) and policies. Previous research reports that libraries 
face many challenges in data management program development (such as funding for 
personnel and equipment and lack of broader institutional support). Tools and recom-
mendations have been developed by leading libraries to overcome these challenges, 
but other areas of support are needed, such as professional training and collaboration 
with other institutions to develop more skills in identifying appropriate materials. 

This study examined the research data (management) services in academic librar-
ies in the United States through a content analysis of 185 library websites. Examining 
the current landscape of research data management services is timely and significant 
for both libraries that are currently planning to improve their data management ser-
vices and those libraries that are already ahead in providing services. This research 
provides an overall understanding of where research data management programs are 
and where they are going; it also facilitates the understanding of current practices and 
data management recommendations and/or tool adoptions and reveals areas that need 
improvement and support.

Literature Review
Many researchers attest to the role of libraries in data management. Flore et al. argue 
that data management involves a number of stakeholders, both within and outside 
the university community.9 The academic library is especially important because it 
occupies “the unique position, as both a facility with staff who have expertise in many 
of the issues surrounding research data management and a campus-wide service with 
relationships among these many stakeholder groups, that favorably positions it to lead 
the RDM effort.”10 Libraries have a long history of working with and training research-
ers and of curating and preserving information, which makes them key players in 
research data management.11 Reinhalter and Walter emphasize the role of libraries in 
helping researchers deal with federal agencies’ new requirement for data management 
planning; they state, “Navigating this brave new world is simply an extension of the 
work that has been going on for decades.”12 

However, the path to providing data management services has been difficult for 
many academic libraries. One major concern is the new skills that librarians must have 
to provide data management services. During a study of librarians who provide data 
management services in some capacity, Tenopir et al. found that a number of librar-
ians felt they did not have the skills needed, they were not given enough time by their 
institutions to provide data management services, and their libraries do not consider 
data management services a priority.13 Similar findings are reported by Antell et al. from 
a study of science librarians at Association of Research Libraries (ARL) institutions: 
Less than a quarter of survey participants (23.2% of 175 librarians) thought they had 
the skills necessary to provide data management services.14 Kennan et al. found that 



922  College & Research Libraries November 2017

librarians’ concerns and need for new skills and training were similar across differ-
ent countries, including Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Ireland.15 
Financial constraints can be another barrier to providing data management services. 
Erway and Rinehart point out that research data management services are often more 
expensive and require more personnel than simply running an institutional repository, 
and the “recognition that [data management service] requires sustainable funding is 
slower in coming.”16 

Despite these difficulties and barriers, some libraries—such as those at Purdue 
University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cornell University, 
and the University of California—have been successful in providing research data 
management services, and they have shared their experiences and knowledge.17 With 
these initial efforts, many libraries have begun providing (or planning) data manage-
ment services, and a number of case studies from a variety of institutions show that 
these services are being implemented across the board.18 Xia and Wang’s study also 
demonstrates the growth in data management services in academic libraries.19 They 
found that the term “data management” became much more common in librarian job 
descriptions after 2008. 

With the growth in data management services in libraries, several studies have at-
tempted to systematically understand the practices and services relevant to research 
data at academic libraries. Tenopir et al. conducted a survey study with library directors 
and academic librarians; Antell et al. also conducted a survey study with ARL science 
librarians.20 Both Briney et al. and Steinhart focused specifically on data policy and 
tried to understand how data policy is implemented and how it impacts data services 
at institutions.21 Other studies have tried to understand data management services, 
practices, and needs in an international context.22 These studies provide the baseline 
understanding of the current status of the field and highlight important implications 
for strategic data management planning in libraries, as well as in library information 
science (LIS) education for future professionals.

Although these previous studies greatly contribute to the understanding of the 
current data landscape in libraries, they also have some limitations. First, most stud-
ies thus far have relied on self-reporting data through either interviews or surveys, 
which represents a methodological limitation. In addition, many studies have reported 
findings at a high level rather than providing a detailed and thorough look at the ser-
vices that have been offered. This study fills these gaps and contributes to the existing 
literature by employing a thorough content analysis of library websites. Previously, Si 
et al. conducted a content analysis of 50 international academic libraries’ data services 
through content analysis and reported six types of services (including introduction to 
research data, data management planning guide, data curation and storage, data man-
agement training, data management reference, and resource recommendation).23 The 
present study employed a larger sample (185 websites) in the United States (whereas 
only 24 American websites were analyzed in the study conducted by Si et al.), and 
analyzed data using a predeveloped protocol with broader coverage of services based 
on standard/best practices for data services not only to understand the current services 
provided but also to identify gaps in services. Because the study conducted by Si et al. 
was completed in 2012, this study will also present a comparison in terms of how data 
services have grown since then, although direct comparison is not possible owing to 
the different study design and methods of analysis. 

Methods
A major method used in this study is content analysis. Content analysis is a recognized 
“versatile tool” for social science researchers, and it has been widely used for objective, 



Research Data Management Services in Academic Libraries in the US  923

systematic, and quantitative examination of content that researchers are interested in.24 
Content analysis is appropriate for this study because it is unobtrusive and context sensi-
tive, and it allows for examination of artifacts or texts that is not subject to the influence 
of interests.25 This study examines library websites because these are often the easiest 
vehicles for researchers to learn about the data services and information that libraries offer. 

Sample 
The project team identified academic libraries in the United States offering any service 
relevant to research data management in September 2015. Different methods were em-
ployed to develop an inclusive study sample. First, two authors conducted an online 
search using the following search terms: “data management library,” “research data 
library,” “data curation library,” “data planning library,” and “data services library.” 
The authors also checked the member list of the ARL and the Carnegie list of libraries 
labeled as having “high” and “very high” research activity to identify any possible 
additions to our initial online search. These searches resulted in an initial list of 193 
institutions with data management services websites. 

Protocol Development 
Before analyzing the data, the project team developed a protocol from a practice cod-
ing session that addresses four main areas of focus: service, information, education, and 
network, with a total of 40 subcategories. Although this study considered the libraries’ 
webpages themselves (as well as content) as a form of service to users or visitors of 
the webpages, this study categorized content displayed on the webpages into different 
types based on the purpose of the content. 

This study defines service as active library engagement with intended users (research-
ers) to help them and provide necessary information. This study differentiates service 
and information based on the “activeness” of the services, and we define information as 
the content provided on the libraries’ webpages. For instance, when libraries provided 
consultations for data management planning or noted that they provide “services” to 
help with data deposit, this study considered this an active form of service and thus 
analyzed it within the service category. On the other hand, when libraries only pro-
vided descriptions of data management through their websites, offering information 
about what it is and how researchers can do it, this study considered these passive 
services and coded them under the information category. We also considered word-
ing on the webpages, as several libraries specifically noted that they provide certain 
types of services. Education refers to the libraries educational efforts: that is, whether 
the libraries offer any educational services to faculty, staff, and students at their institu-
tions. This study captured classes and workshops not only specifically about research 
data management but also those about other topics relevant to research data. Finally, 
network refers to how libraries link to internal or external resources to provide either 
a service or additional information.

The subcategories of service, education, and network were developed from practice 
coding, but we used predeveloped subcategories for information to capture details con-
cerning not only the information provided but also that missed by the libraries. This 
study adopted the fields from Research Data Management published by the National 
Information Standards Organization (NISO),26 which covers the basics of data manage-
ment for researchers and was slightly modified in this study context. 

Data Collection and Analysis 
The identified websites were coded from October to December 2015. During this pe-
riod, several websites were eliminated because they were either no longer available or 



924  College & Research Libraries November 2017

they contained minimal information, such as a few sentences about data management. 
The final list included 185 websites. Two authors tested interrater reliability before 
proceeding and reached an 88.3 percent agreement rate. Coding for most of the fields 
consisted of determining whether each item was present, marked as “yes” or “no,” 
with no judgment about the quantity or quality of services offered in any respect. For 
instance, a website that provided a paragraph of information on data management 
was counted the same as a website that dedicated an entire page to data curation. 

The raw data from 185 library websites were reassessed for completeness and ex-
ported to SPSS23, a software for statistical analysis, for further descriptive analysis. 
Text data were analyzed using Excel. 

Findings
Basics of the Websites
The libraries’ websites for data management varied in nature, coverage of content, 
and manner of displaying information. The term “data management” was the most 
commonly used one when describing the research data management webpages. The 
majority (65%) used the term “data management” in their titles, such as “data manage-
ment,” “data management services,” or “manage your data.” Some data management 
webpages (17%) were part of a bigger website of data services at the libraries. Although 
they might still use the term “data management,” the webpages existed as a subsection 
of data services, which included not only data management services but also other 
types of data-related services, such as methodology consultation. The term “data cu-
ration” was used only by a small number of libraries (3%), and other websites (15%) 
about data management were part of “scholarly communication services,” “research 
services,” or “grant writing.” 

The coverage of basic information about data management provided on the web-
pages—which is perhaps more useful for first-time visitors or researchers who are 

FIGURE 1
Types of Name (n = 185)



Research Data Management Services in Academic Libraries in the US  925

unfamiliar with data management—varied among libraries. Surprisingly, not many 
libraries defined what data are and what data management is, and only a small per-
centage of libraries clearly explained what these terms meant in general and how the 
libraries understood them (29% and 20%, respectively). The aims of the data manage-
ment services or purpose of the webpages were relatively well explained (50%), yet 
a low percentage of libraries defined the intended audience of the services and the 
webpages (31%) and even fewer defined the scope of the services (7%). 

Service 
The libraries’ webpages provided different types of services for their intended users, 
but the extent of such offerings also varied. Most libraries provided basic services, 
such as “help/ask librarians” (79.5%), on their data management webpages through 
online chat, web inquiry forms, or e-mail. However, this service was usually embed-
ded on the library webpages; it is therefore hard to argue that this service is devoted 
to research data management. 

Among other services, data deposit services were well placed by more than half of 
libraries (60%). These libraries tried to encourage researchers to deposit their data to the 
repositories at their institutions for preservation. The libraries provided instructions for 
procedures about data deposit, introduced deposit-related services, connected research-
ers to the staff at the repositories, and led the researchers to institutional repositories’ 
websites. Data management planning was the second-most offered service at libraries 
(41.1%) when general help and “ask a librarian” services were excluded. Data consul-
tation was a more specific service than a help service or “ask a librarian” service, and 
it was offered by 38.4 percent of libraries. The consultation services offered usually 
broadly covered the lifecycles of data, from search, use/reuse, data management and 
preservation, and data sharing. More than a quarter of libraries (27.6%) also offered 
a service for data publishing and sharing. Although this percentage is not high, data 
sharing and data deposit are closely related practices, and both reflect the libraries’ 
efforts toward the promotion of data sharing. Finally, although it is not solely related 
to data management, 15.7 percent of libraries provided a service related to methodol-
ogy, and these were primarily libraries that had a data service unit. 

FIGURE 2
Basic Information Provided (n = 185)



926  College & Research Libraries November 2017

Information 
The libraries’ webpages covered various topics about research data management. 
This study addressed four main areas of information that are considered necessary 
for researchers: 1) background information; 2) data documentation; 3) data adminis-
tration; and 4) data use and reuse. A relatively large number of libraries provided a 
basic description about research data management, specifically the importance of data 
management (64.3%) and how to plan data management (79.5%). 

When it comes down to the detailed level (see figures 5, 6, and 7), fewer libraries 
provided full detail for each topic, and the coverage of topics provided on the webpages 
varied widely. Despite the significance of documentation in data management, not all 
libraries provided information about data documentation: 61.1 percent of libraries 
provided information about metadata standards and practices, and only 43.8 percent 
of libraries provided information about how to properly organize data files. Very few 
libraries provided information about software and tools for documenting data (10.8%) 
or facilitating proper workflow (10.3%). 

Regarding data administration, 42.2 percent of the libraries provided some infor-
mation about data governance (such as copyright issues or ownership), but fewer 

FIGURE 3
Service (n = 185)

FIGURE 4
Information 1: Background (n = 185)

FIGURE 5
Information 2: Data Documentation 

(n = 185)



Research Data Management Services in Academic Libraries in the US  927

libraries (29.7%) addressed the issue of confidentiality in data management, which is 
important when researchers prepare their data to share. More than half of the libraries 
(53.5%) provided information about data storage and preservation. Finally, libraries’ 
data management webpages also provided information relevant to data reuse, primar-
ily regarding how to publish managed data for reuse, with some explanation about 
benefits (49.2%). Some libraries also addressed procedures for reusing published data, 
such as how to search existing data (17.8%) and how to properly cite data (37.8%). 

Education 
Not all libraries have an educational program or service relevant to research data. A 
total of 64 libraries in this study (34.5%) provided educational services relevant to data 
through workshops and classes. Two types of classes and workshops were directly 
relevant to research data management: topics under data management and those 
under data sharing and reuse. Among those 64, most libraries (73.4%) offered classes 
for data management, although half of them were offered on an irregular basis (see 
figure 9). Classes and workshops about data sharing and reuse were offered by 21.8 
percent of libraries, and they usually emphasized the importance of data sharing and 
reuse within data management. 

FIGURE 7
Information 4: Data Use & Reuse 

 (n = 185)

FIGURE 6
Information 3: Data Administration 

(n = 185)

FIGURE 8
Education: Workshop & Classes (n = 64)



928  College & Research Libraries November 2017

Some libraries provided other types of 
educational services for specific data meth-
odology (21.8%) or for using popular, field-
specific datasets (15.6%). Some programs 
also briefly touched upon topics relevant 
to data management (such as publishing 
your data) during data-related classes or 
workshops. Usually, these libraries had 
specialties in research data, and most of 
them already had a class relevant to data 
management or plans to offer such a class. 
About half (45.3%) did not specify what 
types of educational programs the librar-
ies provided, other than referring to “data 
workshops.” Some libraries (20.3%) also 
provided instruction through live, online 
sessions or sharing of recorded sessions 
online. 

Network 
When the libraries provided any service or information through their webpages, 
they also relied on or referred to other internal or external sources. A total of 135 
libraries (73%) had internal links on their webpages. Internal links are usually for 
connecting researchers to other internal resources at their institutions. The most 
common type of internal link was a link to institutional repositories and resources 
(73.3%). This is not surprising, given that most libraries encouraged researchers 
to deposit their data to the institutional repositories. University offices of research 
were the second most popular internal connection to the libraries’ data management 
webpages (60.7%). This was primarily due to the role of the office of research, which 
provides administrative oversight related to research as well as research data. Fewer 
libraries had linked their webpages to other libraries on campus (14.1%), which 
were mostly health science libraries (for further information for health data) and 
data centers (23.7%); data-intensive research centers (13.3%) were also referred to 
for further information.

FIGURE 9
Frequency of Offering (n = 64)

FIGURE 10
Types of Internal Links (n = 135)



Research Data Management Services in Academic Libraries in the US  929

Almost all libraries (a total of 180, 97.3%) had external links on their data manage-
ment webpages. The majority of the external sources were linked to: 1) tools (90.6%) 
that help researchers manage data; 2) data repositories (80.1%) that provide extensive 
resources for data management (such as best practices and standards and/or promo-
tion of deposit to any relevant repositories); 3) government regulations and policies 
(86.7%) (mostly regarding requirements of funding agencies such as National Science 
Foundation and National Institute of Health); and 4) other libraries’ websites (69.4%) 
that have more information about their own libraries’ webpages. 

The project team conducted additional examination of these external links (par-
ticularly for the tools, data repositories, and libraries) to identify the most frequently 
adopted tools in data management, as well as the institutions that were most frequently 
referred to by others. DMPTool (https://dmptool.org/) was more commonly recom-
mended by most libraries (154 libraries, 85.6%) for data management planning than any 
other data management tools, such as Bulk Rename Utility (www.bulkrenameutility.
co.uk/) (20 libraries, 11.1%) or ReNamer (http://renamer.com/) (18 libraries, 10%) for 
file renaming, followed by EZID (http://ezid.cdlib.org/) (16 libraries, 8.9%) for creating 
long-term identifiers for data. 

ICPSR was the most commonly referred data repository by 112 libraries (62.2%) 
for additional resources for data management. Although the number of references 
to a particular resource is just one way of identifying key players in research data 
management, it is obvious that ICPSR provides a number of useful resources. Some of 
the popular external resources also included data repositories, such as re3data (www.
re3data.org/) (85, 47.2%) and Open Access Directory (http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/
Main_Page) (61, 33.9%). The libraries introduced these repositories as resources to help 
researchers find and deposit relevant data. 

Other libraries’ data management websites were usually referred to as sources for 
further information. The top three library data management websites most referred to 
by the libraries were the MIT Library (64 libraries, 35.6%), the University of Minnesota 
Library (47 libraries, 26.1%), and the University of California, San Diego Library (37 
libraries, 20.6%). Although this study did not evaluate the depth and quality of the 
content provided on the websites, these libraries’ data management websites were ex-
tensive and stood out by providing a variety of information under structured themes, 
which was probably why they were referred to by many others. Unlike ICPSR, which 
was the unrivaled repository referred to by the majority of libraries, the counts for the 

FIGURE 11
Types of External Links (n = 180)

https://dmptool.org
http://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk
http://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk
http://renamer.com
https://ezid.cdlib.org/
http://www.re3data.org
http://www.re3data.org
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page


930  College & Research Libraries November 2017

referred libraries had little variations in the extent to which the fourth through the 
tenth most referred-to libraries are recommended, and these included the University of 
Virginia Library, the University of Wisconsin Library, the Purdue Library, the Oregon 
University Library, the Cornell University Library, and the Stanford University Library. 

Discussion
Antell et al. noted that research data management work in libraries is in its emergent 
phase based on their survey study conducted in 2012.27 Libraries have been engag-
ing in various activities and services related to data management since then, and the 
fact that a number of libraries have a web presence for data management services is 
encouraging. The growth is clear from the most recent study in 2015 that analyzed 
data policy, as they found approximately 100 libraries’ data services,28 and this study 
was able to search 185 data-service websites. This also aligns with reports from the 
2012 survey study of Tenopir et al., as creating web guides was the most commonly 
planned research-data service.29 However, the results from the content analysis of 
these webpages also reveals that libraries need to advance and engage more actively 
to provide services, provide information online, and develop educational services. 
There is also a wide variation among library data management services and programs 
according to their web presence. 

As seen in figure 2, some libraries’ data management webpages seem not to provide 
a good basic introduction to their services, and they also lack clear explanations of what 
data management is and the purpose and intended audience of the data management 
webpages and services. Because visitors (researchers) to these webpages might not 
always be familiar with the concept of data management or the libraries’ services, it is 
important to efficiently inform researchers, particularly if the libraries are interested in 
reaching out to researchers and encouraging them to engage with data management. 
It is surprising that only a small number of library webpages provided a definition of 
data management, considering that the purpose of these webpages is to help research-
ers with data management. Many libraries’ webpages were also unclear about whom 
they intended to serve and with what scope of data. 

 The libraries offered different types of services: an active form of service through 
interactions with users either in person or online, a passive form of service by provid-
ing useful information on the webpages, and educational services through workshops 
and classes. For the active service, it is worth noting that data deposit was the most 
frequently offered service, except for the services of general help and “ask a librarian,” 
which is a default, embedded function throughout entire library websites. This reflects 
the libraries’ emphasis on promoting and encouraging researchers’ deposit practices 
at their institutions, which are perhaps influenced by funding agencies’ data sharing 
requirements, and this is why most of the libraries’ data management webpages had a 
link to the institutional repositories. It is also interesting that data management plan-
ning was the second-most offered service. However, for less than half of libraries to 
provide this service seems not to be enough, considering funding agencies’ emphasis 
on data management planning and researchers’ need to meet funders’ requirements. 

The coverage of information and topics about data management provided on the 
websites varied among libraries. Although many libraries tended to provide some 
basic information for researchers—such as what data management is and why it is 
important—significantly fewer libraries provided a detailed level of information about 
data documentation, administration, and reuse. However, about half of the libraries’ 
websites in this study provided at least some information about several core areas of 
data management, such as metadata, data preservation and storage, and data publi-
cations, which is a good starting point and a promising sign for future development. 



Research Data Management Services in Academic Libraries in the US  931

Although this study did not evaluate the quality and depth of information, this result 
suggests the need to improve content and breadth of coverage, at least in the areas 
suggested by NISO.30 Providing useful information that is sufficiently broad and 
in-depth would be a relatively easy and good starting point for libraries planning to 
initiate data management work. 

Educational service for data management is one active form of service offered by 
libraries. More than one third of libraries were devoted to providing some type of 
educational service to researchers, and many of them addressed the topic of data 
management in the context of researchers’ needs, as well as in the context of funding 
agency requirements for data sharing. It is expected that more libraries will start pro-
viding educational services in the future; there were several libraries that stated that 
they were in the process of planning educational services at the time of data analysis. 

The libraries’ data management websites also included various internal and external 
links to refer the researchers to relevant services and additional information. Further 
analysis of external sources linked to on the webpages revealed the most frequently 
adopted tools and the most commonly recommended library or repository websites. 
DMPTool was the most frequently recommended tool by numerous libraries. It seems 
that this tool is widely known to libraries and is introduced to researchers through 
libraries, which indicates its national impact. ICPSR was the top recommended reposi-
tory due to its extensive resources relevant to data management, which demonstrates 
its leading role and expertise. Although ICPSR appeared to be the unrivaled reposi-
tory, most recommended libraries’ websites were more evenly distributed, without a 
huge gap among them, and it seems that more than just a few libraries have played 
an influential role in data management. 

Conclusion
This study examined library data management webpages to understand the landscape 
of research data management services. This study does not suggest the need for all 
libraries to develop the same level of website, as the core services needed in institutions 
would differ depending on the types and characteristics of institutions (for instance, 
if they are larger or doctoral-granting institutions, if they receive NSF funding, if they 
are derived from the data policies at institutional level).31 Still, libraries’ webpages on 
data management are instructional sources for researchers, as well as an important 
way for researchers to learn more about the libraries’ services. How key information 
is displayed and how the libraries’ services that they intend to provide are introduced 
are thus important to libraries’ efforts to reach out to potential users and researchers. 
The results of this study reveal many aspects of library data management webpages 
that need to be improved, including service development and the thoroughness of 
information offered. 

Although this study contributes to the understanding of the landscape of data man-
agement services in libraries, it also has some limitations, which direct some future 
research. Because this study did not evaluate the quality of the webpages, it did not 
capture the difference between good or bad services and thorough or cursory informa-
tion. For instance, a library website with a long page of description about metadata 
standards for research data was coded in the same way as a library website with a 
brief paragraph about metadata. There is also a possibility that the webpages did not 
always correctly reflect what the libraries actually did. Self-reporting survey studies 
or interview studies would complement the results of this study, because these studies 
help capture libraries’ actions that may not be reflected on the webpages. Finally, it 
is critical to study the impact of data services and websites on researchers, the users 
of data services. The content analysis does not provide information about usefulness 



932  College & Research Libraries November 2017

from the users’ perspectives or how the librarians actually work with the research-
ers with or without websites. A follow-up study with librarians to learn about their 
interactions with researchers and listening to users about library services, including 
websites, is a necessary next step. 

 

Notes

 1. Carol Tenopir, Ben Birch, and Suzie Allard, “Academic Libraries and Research Data Services: 
Current Practices and the Plans for the Future,” Association of College and Research Libraries (2012), 
available online at www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/
Tenopir_Birch_Allard.pdf [accessed 7 August 2015].

 2. John P. Holden, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,” 
Office of Science and Technology Policy (2013), available online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf [accessed 20 August 2015].

 3. Lisa M. Federer, Ya-Ling Lu, and Douglas J. Joubert, “Data Literacy Training Needs of 
Biomedical Researchers,” Journal of the Medical Library Association 104, no. 1 (2016): 52–57; Deborah 
E. Keil, “Research Data Needs from Academic Libraries: The Perspective of a Faculty Researcher,” 
Journal of Library Administration 54, no. 3 (2014): 233–40.

 4. Merinda McLure, Allison V. Level, Catherine L. Cranston, Beth Oehlerts, and Mike Cul-
bertson, “Data Curation: A Study of Researcher Practices and Needs,” portal: Libraries and the 
Academy 14, no. 2 (2014): 139–64.

 5. Keil, “Research Data Needs from Academic Libraries,” 235.
 6. Carol Tenopir, Robert J. Sandusky, Suzie Allard, and Ben Birch, “Academic Librarians and 

Research Data Services: Preparation and Attitudes,” IFLA Journal 39, no. 1 (2013): 70.
 7. Tenopir, Birch, and Allard, “Academic Libraries and Research Data Services.” 
 8. Association of College & Research Libraries’ Research Planning and Review Committee, 

“Top Trends in Academic Libraries: A Review of the Trends and Issues Affecting Academic Li-
braries in Higher Education,” College & Research Libraries News 75, no. 6 (2014): 294.

 9. Jodi Reeves Flores, Jason J. Brodeur, Morgan G. Daniels, Natsuko Nichools, and Ece Tur-
nator, “Libraries and the Research Data Management Landscape,” The Process of Discovery: The 
CLIR Postdoctoral Fellowship Program and the Future of the Academy (2015), 82–102, available online 
at www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub167/pub167.pdf [accessed 22 August 2015].

10. Ibid., 88.
11. Ibid., 88–89.
12. Lauren Reinhalter and Rachel J. Wittman, “The Library: Big Data’s Boomtown,” Serials 

Librarian 67, no. 4 (2014): 368.
13. Tenopir, Sandusky, Allard, and Birch. “Academic Librarians and Research Data Services.”
14. Karen Antell, Jody Bales Foote, Jaymie Turner, and Brian Shults, “Dealing with Data: Science 

Librarians’ Participation in Data Management at Association of Research Libraries Institutions,” 
College & Research Libraries 75, no. 4 (2014): 567.

15. Mary Anne Kennan, Sheila Cortall, and Waseem Afzal, “‘Making Space’ in Practice and 
Education: Research Support Services in Academic Libraries,” Library Management 35, no. 8/9 
(2014): 666–83.

16. Ricky Erway and Amanda Rinehart, “If You Build It, Will They Fund? Making Research Data 
Management Sustainable,” Online Computer Library Center (2015), 4, available online at www.oclc.
org/content/dam/research/publications/2016/oclcresearch-making-research-data-management-
sustainable-2016.pdf [accessed 5 September 2015].

17. Anna Gold, “Data Curation and Libraries: Short-Term Development, Long-Term Prospects,” 
Digital Commons@Cal Poly (2010), available online at http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/view-
content.cgi?article=1027&context=lib_dean [accessed 17 August 2015]; J.L. Mullins, “Enabling 
International Access to Scientific Data Sets: Creation of the Distributed Data Curation Center 
(D2C2),” Purdue University (2007), available online at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1100&context=lib_research [accessed 17 August 2015].

18. Gareth Knight, “Building a Research Data Management Service for the London School 
of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine,” Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems 49, no. 4 
(2015): 424–39; Heather Coates, “Building Data Services from the Ground Up: Strategies and Re-
sources,” Journal of eScience Librarianship 3, no. 1 (2014): 52–59; Virgil E. Varvel and Yi Sheh, “Data 
Management Consulting at The Johns Hopkins University,” New Review of Academic Librarianship 
19, no. 3 (2013): 224–45; Aaron Addison, Jennifer Moore, and Cynthia Hudson-Vitale, “Forging 
Partnerships: Foundations of Geospatial Data Stewardship,” Journal of Map & Geography Librar-

http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/Tenopir_Birch_Allard.pdf
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/Tenopir_Birch_Allard.pdf
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub167/pub167.pdf
http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/2016/oclcresearch-making-research-data-management-sustainable-2016.pdf
http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/2016/oclcresearch-making-research-data-management-sustainable-2016.pdf
http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/2016/oclcresearch-making-research-data-management-sustainable-2016.pdf
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=lib_dean
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=lib_dean
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=lib_research
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=lib_research


Research Data Management Services in Academic Libraries in the US  933

ies 11, no. 3 (2015): 359–75; Andrew Cox, Debra Hiom, Dom Fripp, Stephen Gray, Kellie Snow, 
and Damian Steer, “Librarians as Partners in Research Data Service Development at Griffith 
University,” Program: Electronic Library and Information Services 49, no. 4 (2015): 440–60; Joanna 
Ball, “Research Data Management for Libraries: Getting Started,” Insights 26, no. 3 (2013): 256–60; 
Margaret E. Henderson and Teresa L. Knott, “Starting a Research Data Management Program 
Based in a University Library,” Medical Reference Services Quarterly 34, no. 1 (2015): 47–59; Ralph 
Kiel, Frances O’Neil, Adrian Gallagher, and Cindy Mohammad, “The Library in the Research 
Culture of the University: A Case Study of Victoria University Library,” IFLA Journal 41, no. 1 
(2015): 40–52; Ken Chad and Suzanne Enright, “The Research Cycle and Research Data Manage-
ment (RDM): Innovating Approaches at the University of Westminster,” Insights 27, no. 2 (2014): 
147–53.

19. Jingfeng Xia and Minglu Wang, “Competencies and Responsibilities of Social Science Data 
Librarians: An Analysis of Job Descriptions,” College & Research Libraries 75, no. 3 (2014): 362–88.

20. Tenopir, Birch, and Allard, “Academic Libraries and Research”; Carol Tenopir, Robert 
J. Sandusky, Suzie Allard, and Ben Birch, “Research Data Management Services in Academic 
Research Libraries and Perceptions of Librarians,” Library & Information Science Research 36, no. 
2 (2014): 84–90; Antell, Foote, Turner, and Shults, “Dealing with Data.”

21. Kristin Briney, Abigail Goben, and Lisa Zilinski, “Do You Have an Institutional Data Policy? 
A Review of the Current Landscape of Library Data Services and Institutional Data Policies,” 
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 3, no. 2 (2015): 1–25, doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1232; 
Gail Steinhart, “Libraries as Distributors of Geospatial Data: Data Management Policies as Tools 
for Managing Partnerships,” Library Trends 55, no. 2 (2006): 264–84.

22. Andrew M. Cox and Stephen Pinfield, “Research Data Management and Libraries: Cur-
rent Activities and Future Priorities,” Journal of Librarianship & Information Science 46, no. 4 (2014): 
299–316; Kennan, Cortall, and Afzal, “‘Making Space’ in Practice and Education”; Li Si, Wenming 
Xing, Xiaozhe Zhuang, Xiaoqin Hua, and Limei Zhou, “Investigation and Analysis of Research 
Data Services in University Libraries,” Electronic Library 33, no. 3 (2015): 417–49.

23. Si, Xing, Zhuang, Hua, and Zhou, “Investigation and Analysis of Research Data Services.”
24. B.D. Prasad, “Content Analysis: A Method in Social Science Research,” in Research Methods 

for Social Work, eds. D.K. Lal Das and V. Bhaskaran (New Delhi, India: Rawat, 2008), 173–93; B. 
Berelson, Content Analysis in Communication Research (New York, N.Y.: Free Press, 1952).

25. Inhwa Kim and Jasna Kuljis, “Applying Content Analysis to Web-Based Content,” Journal 
of Computing and Information Technology 18, no. 4 (2010): 369–75.

26. Carly Strasser, “Research Data Management,” National Information Standards Organiza-
tion (2015), available online at www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/15375/Prim-
erRDM-2015-0727.pdf [accessed 29 September 2015].

27. Antell, Foote, Turner, and Shults, “Dealing with Data.”
28. Briney, Goban, and Zilinski, “Do You Have an Institutional Data Policy?”
29. Tenopir, Birch, and Allard, “Academic Libraries and Research Data Services.”
30. Strasser, “Research Data Management.”
31. Tenopir, Birch, and Allard, “Academic Libraries and Research Data Services”; Briney, 

Goban, and Zilinski, “Do You Have an Institutional Data Policy?”

https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1232
http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/15375/PrimerRDM-2015-0727.pdf
http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/15375/PrimerRDM-2015-0727.pdf