2012 ICPSR Membership Survey

Official Representative – Designated Representative FeedbackJuly 2012

About the Research Project

• Current ORs and DRs were invited to participate

• Survey was conducted in April 2012• The response rate was over 40%

resulting in 325 completed surveys• Subgroup analysis has been conducted

on the results and differences noted where they exist

Report Content• Key Findings & Implications• OR Profiles• The OR Meeting• ICPSR Product Awareness & Satisfaction• Use of Other Data Sources• ICPSR Summer Program Feedback• Interest in New Data Services

Key Findings & Implications• The most common OR department continues to be the

library followed by ORs based in political science and sociology departments; the most common educational background is a Master’s degree in library sciences.

• The tenure served in the OR role is fairly short (half in role for less than 4 years).

ICPSR must continue producing multiple forms of outreach and training options including those aimed at educating (familiarizing) librarians about ICPSR resources and getting them comfortable in working with data.

Since librarians are natural promoters of resources, ICPSR needs to remind ORs frequently of the promotional materials available to them for their campuses as well as ICPSR training opportunities.

Key Findings & Implications• A declining number of ORs indicate they have ever visited

ICPSR in person for an OR Meeting. (Budgets will likely continue to impact ORs’ ability to attend an onsite meeting.)

• ORs desire program content that is about ICPSR resources, using data in teaching, speaks to digital curation of research data, and helps them function in their role better in part by networking with other ORs. Pre-meeting workshops should be continued.

ICPSR should continue to hold onsite meetings as well as consider regional meetings, if financially feasible, in the future; it is essential that all meetings have a virtual component.

ICPSR should develop the program to ensure significant content is dedicated to practical application and training with regard to ICPSR resources and teaching tools, and with increasing content dedicated to the science of digital curation of research data.

Key Findings & Implications• Awareness of several ICPSR tools is generally high, but

past year usage trails awareness significantly.• About half of ORs have used ICPSR data for research or

teaching, and only two in five ORs have held ICPSR workshops/orientation on their campuses.

• ORs award ICPSR with high levels of satisfaction on all items measured, especially staff responsiveness.

ICPSR must continue to remind (train) ORs about its resources and tools to promote not just familiarity, but usage and/or referral.

ICPSR must continue to focus on responsiveness and evolution of its resources to maintain not only high levels of satisfaction, but also high levels of value to its institutional members.

Key Findings & Implications• OR institutions utilize/subscribe to several other data

sources.• ORs suggested many acquisitions/collection

improvements, but were most focused on acquiring more international, economic, and health data; updating series data more quickly; and retrofitting older studies with statistical software files and SDA components.

• ORs believe their institutions would be most interested in the development of data-related teaching tool products.

As acquisition strategies are developed, these data should be in the review. In addition, when datasets are acquired or retrofitted, more promotion should surround their release.

ICPSR should investigate still more products related to teaching with data in the classroom.

Key Findings & Implications• About one in three ORs are very familiar with the

Summer Program, and one in five ORs send participants regularly.

• ORs continue to play key roles in communicating the Summer Program to potential participants.

• Cost/funding potential participants continues to concern ORs.

ICPSR should work to improve awareness and understanding of its Summer Program across ORs.

ICPSR should research scholarship/funding sources for the purposes of directing ORs/participants to sources where funding may be found.

OR Suggested Improvements• Make all datasets available in Stata, SPSS, SAS, xls, etc.• More data available in SDA• More international data• More economic data• More health data• More teaching tools (data in the classroom)

development• More data curation (repository) tools, training, and

products• Funding (or listing of resources) for Summer Program

attendance

Profiles – Official Representatives

OR Length of Service• The average OR has worked at their

current institution for about 14 years, ranging from one to 45 years served.

• On average, ORs have spent about 7 years in the OR role at their institution ranging from just started to 37 years.

• Just under half of ORs have served in their role for less than 4 years (46%).

• Average length of service as an OR is similar to 2005, 2008, & 2010.

Where ORs Work• Most ORs describe their work department as a Library (46%)• Nineteen percent (each) work in a Political Science or Sociology

department

Graduate Studies

Social Work

Health/Medical Sciences

Administration

History

Geography

Arts and Sciences

Business

Other

Education

Public Policy/Public Health

Law/Criminal Justice

Research (unspecified department)

Information or Computing Services

Research Center or Institute in Academic Setting

Data Center (unspecified department)

Economics

Social Science

Sociology

Political Science

Library

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

7%

8%

10%

16%

19%

19%

46%

Librar

y

Socio

logy

Politi

cal Sc

i...

Data Cen

ter

Econo

mics0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%

46

19 198 10

45

1520

10 8

54

1116

8 5

41

12 15 135

42

1520

5

2316

39

124

2012 2010 2008 2005 1998 1988

Changes in Where ORs Work• Since 1988, more ORs indicate they work in the library

with notably less working in social sciences departments.• The percentage of ORs based in the Economics

department have increased since 1988.

NA

OR Educational Focus• The most frequently studied discipline among ORs is Library

Sciences (44%); 21% cite degrees in Political Science, 19% in Sociology, and 8% in Economics

• Note that degrees described as “Data/Information Sciences” increased from 2% in 2008 to 6% in 2012

• Most ORs have Master’s Degrees (55%) or Doctorates (41%)

Health/Medical SciencesLaw/Legal Services/Criminal Justice

Social WorkComputer Sciences

GeographyBusiness

Public Policy/AdministrationEducation

Data/Information SciencesHistory

Social ScienceEconomics

OtherSociology

Political ScienceLibrary Sciences

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%1%1%2%2%3%3%4%

5%6%6%

7%8%

13%19%

21%44%

The OR Meeting

OR Meeting Attendance

• About two in ten ORs attended the most recent OR Meeting in 2011

• Approximately one in three have attended an OR Meeting in Ann Arbor (34%)

16% 5

%

79%

2013 OR Meeting

Yes, onsiteYes, virtuallyNo

34%

66%

Ever Attended

YesNo

Attendance varies by Carnegie Class

• Extensive institutions (represented in the survey) continue to demonstrate the highest level of attendance at OR meetings

Extensive Intensive MA BA0

102030405060

3426

13 12

50

36 38

23

29

8

32 28

Percentage of ORs who Attended

2011 Onsite2009 Virtual2007 Onsite

OR Meeting: Future Attendance

• Most ORs would like to attend the 2013 onsite meeting• Only 9% predict they will “definitely attend” in 2013

Response Percent

Response Count

9% 2736% 11431% 9814% 4411% 36

3196skipped question

ICPSR is currently planning for an onsite OR Meeting in 2013 in Ann Arbor. Which statement best describes your prediction of your ability to attend?

I am not interested in attending an onsite OR Meeting

I will definitely attend

answered question

I would like to attend, but my attendance is unlikely

Not familiar enough with the mtg to have an opinion

I would like to attend but am unsure about my ability to

Preferred Meeting Content • ORs prefer meeting content that revolves around use of

ICPSR resources/tools and its data collections• Sessions on using data in teaching and on data curation

(data science) are also preferred

Other

Research presentations (from non-ICPSR researchers)

Networking opportunities

Presentations: non-ICPSR data providers

Presentations to increase effectiveness in OR/DR role

Presentations digital curation of research data

Presentations on how to use data in teaching

Presentations on ICPSR tools/resources

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

5%19%

31%

33%45%

54%54%

69%

Most Important OR Mtg Content

OR Suggestions to Improve OR Meeting

• Continue to conduct workshops the day before such as a mini data management course similar to the course by the 3 Amigos, online analysis, data curation, etc.

• Consider a session(s) dedicated how to intrigue (train) particular departments to use ICPSR data (departmental promotion)

• Include time dedicated to ‘formal’ networking across ORs (informal is not enough)

• Though admittedly a challenge for the program committee, involve more ORs in program content or panels

• Continue to offer OR meeting virtually since budgets and time constraints challenge onsite attendance

OR Product Awareness/Use of and Satisfaction with ICPSR Resources

Product Awareness & Use• OR’s highest ICPSR product awareness and use includes ICPSR

webinars and the OR Web site• Note that use by ORs of these resources has declined since 2010

• MyClass garners the lowest awareness & use

MyClassOLC

ICPSR Utilization ReportsUndergrad Opportunities

Data User Help CenterPromotional/Workshop Materials

OR Web SiteICPSR-sponsored Webinars

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8016

5555

626363

6772

318

252222

2528

24

Used Past Year Familiar

OR Interaction with ICPSR Data

• Half of ORs have used ICPSR data for research or in-class instruction

• Two in five ORs held ICPSR workshops on campus

Yes41%

No41%

Not sure18%

Conducted ICPSR Workshop

Yes49%

No51%

Personally Used ICPSR Data

020406080

100

42 42 42 39 41 36 33 38

38 30 23 21 15 19 20 14

Some Significant

Interest Level in Potential ICPSR Data Products

• ORs believe the highest level of institutional interest to be in teaching with data products and training

• Secure data services (online) and catalog services (ability to list in ICPSR’s data union catalog) are also of greatest interest

Satisfaction• Over half of ORs rated ICPSR with a 9-10 in terms of overall

satisfaction (56%) with a mean of 8.4; satisfaction is similar to 2008 and 2010

Ease of finding info on websiteTeaching/classroom resources

Promotional materialsBreadth of data holdings

Value for moneyEvolution to meet changing needs

Summer ProgramEase of downloading dataQuality of documentation

Overall products/resourcesQuality of data provided

Ease of contacting User SupportStaff responsiveness

OVERALL

7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 97.8

7.98.1

8.38.48.4

8.58.58.5

8.78.78.7

8.98.4

Satisfaction Scores (1-10)

26

Use of Other Data Sources

Other Data Sources for ORs• Roper Center• Association of

Religion Data Archives (ARDA)

• MPC: IPUMS; NHGIS• Sociometrics• UN Statistical

Division• Data Liberation

Initiative

• Gallup Poll• World Bank data• Pew Surveys• Free IGO data

sources• Social Explorer• American FactFinder• National Bureau of

Economic Research (NBER)

Acquisitions of Interest/ Collection Improvements

• More international data; more data from Asian countries

• Macroeconomic data, especially financial

• More recent data (update series sooner)

• More health data• LAPOP• IRS data• IMF data

• Environmental/global warming data

• Data on social media usage

• Retrofit entire collection to include SPSS, etc.

• GIS analysis capabilities• Provide xls files to read

into minitab, etc.• Home mortgage data• Religion data• Immigration data• Latinobarometer

29

The Summer Program

Summer Program Interaction•Most ORs have some familiarity with the Summer Program

35%

49%

16%

Familiarity

Very SomewhatNot very

•One in five ORs indicate they send participants regularly (every 2 years)

19%19%

46%

16%

Participation

Every 2 yearsEvery 3-5 yearsRarely/neverNot sure

Summer Program Impact

2% 22%

57%

19%

Impact on Membership

SP is primary reason for membershipSP is significant factor, among othersSP makes no differenceNot sure

• About one in five ORs (22%) report that the Summer Program is a significant factor, among others, for membership in ICPSR

• Two percent indicate it is a primary reason for membership

Learning about the Summer Program

• ORs are a significant source of information for potential Summer Program participants

• Faculty also play a large role in creating awareness as do potential participants

Information Source %I, as OR, initiate discussions w/ potential students 50%

Advisors/faculty seek out potential students 20%

Individuals initiate discussions with me 15%

Individuals initiate discussions with their advisors/faculty 14%

Individuals gather their own information w/ little help from me or others

12%

Individuals are generally unaware of the Summer Program 23%

Summer Program Assessment• About one in three ORs from institutions sending students

to the Summer Program (32%) report that their institution makes no effort to assess what participants learn.

• Across the 24% that put forth some type of assessment or follow-up, efforts are largely informal and qualitative:

• ORs ask participants for testimonials• Participants are asked to take part in research groups

who are updating their skills• Students asked to give a presentation about their

experience

Membership Overview – July 2012

• Membership in ICPSR consists of 715 consortium members

• US academic member institutions are represented in every US state except West Virginia and Hawaii for a total of 394 US universities and colleges

• 56% of institutions are affiliated as part of 46 Federation or National memberships

Institution Type CountsExtensives 137Intensives 45Masters 90Bachelors & Specialized

116

Community College 6Associate 26Canadian 35Non-North American 260