It’s important to recognise the local context, which may not be comparable to the situation in more fully democratic nations, where trust in data users from across the sectors is often implicit, and accountability much easier to manage.
Again, this topic was illustrated with local examples of data from Kyrgyzstani research shared in various repositories under varying access conditions. One example was data from a study on Fair philippines rcs data Trails in Kyrgyzstan, of which Meghan was a co-author.
On day 2, data publishing, creating documentation and reuse of data were covered.
A selection of UK data repositories was showcased to give examples of the different scale of investment and progress undertaken by different institutions.
Larger research-intensive UK institutions have invested in research data management infrastructure and activity – from building advisory and support services to enabling trusted data storage. Other institutions have chosen smaller lighter-weight solutions that simply offer a place to publish data, or even just metadata.
Our advice is always to assess what an institution might need in terms of scale and scope of publishing data, the choice and affordability of technology and software, and how (new) roles and responsibilities might be allocated. Federating knowledge and work within a country or known collaborators is always advantageous.