Logos for QDR, DMPTool, and Princeton Research Data Service

Last December we announced the inaugural Qualitative Data Management Plan (DMP) Competition, sponsored jointly by The Qualitative Data Repository, Princeton Research Data Service, and the DMPTool. As qualitative researchers writing such plans frequently ask for examples of excellent DMPs for qualitative research, we hoped that this competition would assemble a trove of exemplar DMPs that we could share with the research community.

We received a wealth of excellent submissions. Many of the DMPs were so good in fact, that for that extra push over the cliff we decided to expand our pool of awardees from 10 to 11 outstanding Qualitative DMPs from a wide range of disciplines. We couldn’t be more excited to announce these winners today. We’re hugely thankful to everyone who submitted a DMP, and, of course, to the five data management experts who judged the entries (listed below).

Each entry was reviewed by three expert judges . They assessed DMPs on a 1-4 (not adequate to exemplary) scale for each item in an 18-item rubric rubric based on the DART Project as well as guidance from the DMPTool. Judges also assigned an overall quality score from 1-10 to each DMP. You can find our rubric on OSF. Rubric scores and overall scores were closely correlated (r=.89), suggesting that the rubric closely aligned with experts’ assessments of overall quality. We also asked judges to include some overall observations about each DMP: we have included excerpts from these for each winner.

And the awards for Outstanding Qualitative DMP go to:

Photos of winners as described in caption
From left to right: Laura Garbes; Patricia Condon; Ieva Zumbyte; Joshua Rubin; Dayna Cueva Alegría; Eleta Exline; People in the Zoom box: Bethany Radcliff, Amelia Acker, Emily Simpson, Ashley Bower; Jaeci Hall; Christopher Hale; Tina Nabatchi; Carolina Seigler; Louise Buckley; Nicholas Bell

 

Listed alphabetically by first author

  1. Amelia Acker, Ashley Bower, Emily Simpson, Bethany Radcliff, University of Texas at Austin, School of Information, “COVID-19 Oral Histories Project,” developed for research by Whitney Chappell, University of Texas at San Antonio

Summary comment from judges: “Wonderful DMP and approach to community-centered work”

  1. Nicholas Bell, University of Pennsylvania and Georgetown University, Why Do So Few Workers Take Trade Adjustment Assistance

Summary comment from judges: “This is a strong DMP, and it's clear the author has thought through and begun implementing good data management principles even in the composition of the DMP itself. Clear descriptions of data collection and plans for storing and sharing.”

  1. Patricia Condon, Louise Buckley and Eleta Exline, University of New Hampshire, “Teaching Quantitative Data in the Social Sciences at the University of New Hampshire: Data Management Plan

Summary comment from judges: “Concise and straightforward descriptions of data formats, plans for storing and preserving … Wonderful DMP and acknowledgement that it's a living document!”

  1. Dayna Cueva Alegría, University of Kentucky, NSF SBE, “Water Pollution Governance in Lake Titicaca: Creating Political Spaces of Democratization

Summary comment from judges: “Strong DMP with a lot of attention and detail paid to data formats, storage, preservation, and sharing”

  1. Laura Garbes, Brown University, NSF SBE, with Andrew Creamer, Science Data Specialist, Brown University, “Analyzing Diversity Efforts in Public Radio Organizations - A comparative approach to performance standards in the workplace

Summary comment from judges: “this DMP is pretty much perfect. Includes different measures to avoid issues related to confidentiality and security as well as it is clearly committed to data discoverability, accessibility and reusability, specially when articulates about the storage/archiving options”

  1. Christopher Hale, University of Alabama, NSF- SBE “Ethnic Diversity and Public Goods Provision Across Latin America

Summary comment from judges: “Strong plan for description of data collection, storage, and sharing, with good attention to considerations for de-identifying data during the entire process, prior to depositing with the repository. This DMP has a lot of great detail about the security and anonymity practices of the PI…”

  1. Jaeci Hall, University of Oregon, NSF-SBE, “Text Analysis of Taldash (GAL) in Support of Nuu-wee-ya' Language Revitalization: Indigenous-based linguistic analysis and methodological reflections

Summary comment from judges: “This DMP is an excellent example of cultural sensitivity when working with indigenous materials... Good plans for handling sensitive data and the role of partner institutions with regards to data ownership and rights to share.”

  1. Tina Nabatchi, PARCC, Syracuse University and Rebecca McLain, Portland State University, NSF SBE, “The Atlas of Collaboration: Building the World’s First Large N Database on Collaborative Governance,”

Summary comment from judges: “This DMP is strong in describing both how data will be gathered and maintained now, and how it will be appropriately archived in the future. Provides a great description of the expected data and roles and responsibilities with regard to data in a multi-institutional project. Fantastic DMP.”

  1. Joshua Rubin, Bates College, NSF SBE, with Pete Schlax, Science and Data Librarian, Bates College, “Possibility Spaces and Possible Things

Summary comment from judges: “Overall an excellent DMP… [T] he overall plan is strengthened by inclusion of QDR selection for data sharing”

  1. Carolina Seigler, Princeton University, Department of Sociology, NSF-SBE, “Religion and Sexual Violence

Summary comment from judges: “Compelling DMP, really made the case why the data cannot be shared well and the security provisions were exemplary.”

  1. Ieva Zumbyte, Brown University, NSF-SES, with Andrew Creamer, Science Data Specialist, Brown University, “Tracing the Quality of Public Childcare in the Neighborhoods of Chennai, India

Summary comment from judges: “carefully considers issues such as licensing and re-identification of de-identified data... Very good description of the chosen repository and the characteristics that backup such a choice, even though the raw data won't be shared.”

Our panel of expert judges

  • Renata G. Curty, Social Sciences Research Facilitator, UCSB Library’s Research Data Services, University of California, Santa Barbara

  • Jennifer Doty, Research Data Librarian, Emory University

  • Celia Emmelhainz, Anthropology & Qualitative Research Librarian, University of California, Berkeley

  • Megan O’Donnell, Data Services Librarian, Iowa State University

  • Vicky Rampin, Research Data Management and Reproducibility Librarian, New York University Libraries