Building Socio-technical Systems to Support Data Management and Digital Scholarship in the Social Sciences

  • Plato L. SmithIIEmail author
  • Crystal Felima
  • Fletcher Durant
  • David Van Kleeck
  • Hélène Huet
  • Laurie N. Taylor


This chapter draws upon a variety of expert technical perspectives—in preservation, data management, metadata, and digital scholarship—to examine digital data and digital scholarship in terms of how libraries are positioned to support scholarly needs. We consider the technical needs of scholarship through a socio-technical—people, policies, communities, and technologies together—lens for data and digital scholarship in anthropology and the social sciences. There are concerns of working with living people, ethical standards, anonymity, privacy, and so forth for data and digital scholarship. Working from case studies of the University of Florida, we situate questions on technical aspects of data management, metadata, preservation, and digital scholarship in relation to the retrieval, dissemination, and presentation of digital scholarship and data, in regards to the current, new, and evolving infrastructure in libraries for data management and digital scholarship.

We also discuss library services for training and education, core elements in the support systems for data and digital scholarship, and how libraries can serve as experimental labs and neutral resources brokers for research relationships within large, hierarchical organizations. The chapter also notes innovative programs such as the CLIR Postdoctoral Fellows Program for Data Curation in Latin American and Caribbean Studies.


Data management and curation Digital Humanities Digital scholarship Libraries Metadata Personal digital archiving Preservation Research data management Socio-technical systems theory 

Works Cited

  1. Adcock, E. P., Varlamoff, M.-T., & Kremp, V. (1998). IFLA Principles for the Care and Handling of Library Material. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Core Programme on Preservation and Conservation. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  2. AnthroDataDPA. (2009). Anthropological Data Digital Preservation and Access (AnthroDataDPA) Report. National Science Foundation and Wenner-Gren.Google Scholar
  3. ARCS. (2017). UF Academic Research Consulting & Services. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  4. Banks, A. J. (2006). Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, A. (2008). Digital Preservation Guidance Note: 1. Selecting File Formats for Long-Term Preservation. London: The National Archives. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  6. CARDIO (Collaborative Assessment of Research Data). (2013). CARDIO. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  7. CCSDS. (2012). Recommendation for Space Data Systems Practices. Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Recommended Practice, CCSDS 650.0-M-2. Magenta Book June 2012. Washington, DC: CCSDS Secretariat. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  8. CESSDA. (2017a). Tutorial: OAIS Model. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  9. CESSDA. (2017b). Expert Tour Guide on Data Management. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  10. CESSDA. (2017c). Adapt your Data Management Plan: A List of Data Management Questions Based on the Expert Tour Guide on Data Management. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  11. CLIR (Council on Library and Information Resources). (2018). CLIR Postdoctoral Fellowship Program. Washington, DC: CLIR. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  12. Clubb, J. M., Austin, E. W., Geda, C. L., & Traugott, M. W. (1985). Sharing Research Data in the Social Sciences. In S. E. Fienberg, M. E. Martin, & M. L. Straf (Eds.), Sharing Research Data (pp. 39–88). Washington, DC: Committee on National Statistics, Commission on Behavioral and Social Science and Education, National Research Council. National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  13. CoPAR (Council for the Preservation of the Anthropological Record). (2018). CoPAR. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  14. Darling, P. W., & Ogden, S. (1981). From Problems Perceived to Programs in Practice: The Preservation of Library Resources in the USA, 1956–1980. Library Resources & Technical Services, 25(1), 9–29.Google Scholar
  15. DCC. (2007). DCC Curation Lifecycle Model. Edinburgh: Digital Curation Centre. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  16. DCC. (2013). Checklist for a Data Management Plan (v.4.0). Edinburgh: Digital Curation Centre. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  17. Farnel, S., Shiri, A., Campbell, S., Cockney, C., Rathi, D., & Stobbs, R. (2017). A Community-Driven Metadata Framework for Describing Cultural Resources: The Digital Library North Project. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55(5), 289–306. Scholar
  18. Faundeen, J. L., Burley, T. E., Carlino, J. A., Govoni, D. L., Henkel, H. S., Holl, S. L., Hutchison, V. B., Martin, E., Montgomery, E. T., Ladino, C., Tessler, S., & Zolly, L. S. (2013). The United States Geological Survey Science Data Cycle Model. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  19. Field, J. M. (2003). Chapter 6. Building a National Preservation Program: National Endowment for the Humanities Support for Preservation. Journal of Library Administration, 38(1–2): 59–66.
  20. Fong, B. L., Wang, M., White, K., & Tipton, R. (2016). Assessing and Serving the Workshop Needs of Graduate Students. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(5): 575–576.
  21. Goldstein, L., & Sanaghan, P. (2009). Building ‘Relational Capital’. Inside Higher Ed, October 7.
  22. Harrison, F. V. (1997). Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further Toward an Anthropology of Liberation. Arlington: Association of Black Anthropologists, American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
  23. ICOM (International Council of Museums), Committee for Conservation. (2014). Declaration on Environmental Guidelines. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  24. ICPSR. (2018). ICPSR. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  25. Italian Center of Excellence on Digital Conservation. (2014). Digital Preservation, OAIS Reference Model. Accessed 6 Feb 2019.
  26. Jordan, C. (2015). Language Data, Ethics, and the Law. New Review of Information Networking, 20, 117–122. Scholar
  27. Kenworth, M. A., King, E. M., & Ruwell, M. E. (1985). Preserving Field Records: Archival Techniques for Archaeologists and Anthropologists. Philadelphia: The University Museum.Google Scholar
  28. Lavoie, B. (2014). The Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model: Introductory Guide (2nd ed.). DPC Technology Watch Report 14-02 October 2014. Accessed 5 Feb 2019.
  29. Lee, K.-H., et al. (2002). The State of the Art and Practice in Digital Preservation. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 107(1), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Macklin, A. S. (2007). Communities of Practice. In G. Bodner & M. K. Orgill (Eds.), Theoretical Frameworks for Research in Chemistry/Science Education (pp. 204–227). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  31. McCrady, E. (1993). Librarians and Paper Permanence. Alkaline Paper Advocate, 6(6), 48–52.Google Scholar
  32. O’Dell, A., Van Kleeck, D., & Shorey, C. (2016). Presentation: Metadata for Research Data. IR@UF. Gainesville: University of Florida. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  33. Resnik, D. (2010). Genomics Research Data: Open vs. Restricted Access. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 32(1), 1–6.
  34. Rodwell, J., & Fairbairn, L. (2008). Dangerous Liaisons?: Defining the Faculty Liaison Librarian Service Model, Its Effectiveness and Sustainability. Library Management, 29(1/2), 116–124.
  35. Rosenthal, D. (2015). Emulation & Virtualization as Preservation Strategies. Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  36. Russell, J. C., Taylor, L. N., de Farber, B., Smith, P., Dinsmore, C., Walker, B., Hawley, H., & Nemmers, J. Proposal for Postdoctoral Fellow in Caribbean Studies Data Curation, CLIR Postdoctoral Fellowship Hosts Application for 2017–2019. Gainesville: UF. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  37. Sacco, Kathleen L. (2015). Supporting Digital Humanities for Knowledge Acquisition in Modern Libraries. Information Science Reference. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost.Google Scholar
  38. Sayre, M. B., Brunner, M., Croxall, B., & McGinn, E. (2015). Toward a Trackless Future: Moving Beyond ‘Alt-Ac’ and ‘Post-Ac’. In J. C. Maclachlan, E. A. Waraska, & C. Williford (Eds.), The Process of Discovery: The CLIR Postdoctoral Fellowship Program and the Future of the Academy (pp. 103–123). CLIR pub 167. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  39. Shore, E. (2012). Embracing Hybridity: The Merged Organization, Alt/Ac and Higher Education. Journal of Library Administration, 52(2), 189–202.
  40. Silverman, S., & Parezo, N. J. (1995). Preserving the Anthropological Record. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.Google Scholar
  41. Smiraglia, R. P. (2005). Content Metadata—An Analysis of Etruscan Artifacts in a Museum of Archeology. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 40(3–4), 135–151.
  42. Sula, C. A., Hackney, S. E., & Cunningham, P. (2017). A Survey of Digital Humanities Programs. Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy, 11, 15–40.
  43. Thomson, G. (1986). The Museum Environment (2nd ed.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  44. Turner, H. (2016). The Computerization of Material Culture Catalogues: Objects and Infrastructure in the Smithsonian Institution’s Department of Anthropology. Museum Anthropology, 39(2), 163–177. Scholar
  45. UF (University of Florida). (2015). Digital Humanities Graduate Certificate. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  46. UF (University of Florida). (2018). List of Courses, Digital Humanities Graduate Certificate. Gainesville: UF. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  47. University of California, Curation Center of the California Digital Library. (2018). DMPTool. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  48. University of Glasgow HATII, DCC, & JISC. (2009). Data Asset Framework (DAF) Implementation Guide, 3. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  49. UNSW (University of New South Wales). (2017). UNSW Governance Policy, Appendix 1-Data Management Lifecycle, 7. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  50. USGS (United States Geological Survey). (2013). The United Geological Survey Science Data Lifecycle Model. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  51. USGS (United States Geological Survey). (2017). USGS Community for Data Integration (CDI) Science Support Framework (SSF). Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  52. Waraksa, E. A. (2015). A Brief History of the CLIR Postdoctoral Fellowship Program (2004–the Present). In Maclachlan, J. C., Waraksa, E. A., & Williford, C. (Eds.), The Process of Discovery: The CLIR Postdoctoral Fellowship Program and the Future of the Academy (pp. 4–13). Washington, DC: CLIR. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  53. Wenger, É., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Plato L. SmithII
    • 1
    Email author
  • Crystal Felima
    • 1
  • Fletcher Durant
    • 1
  • David Van Kleeck
    • 1
  • Hélène Huet
    • 1
  • Laurie N. Taylor
    • 2
  1. 1.George A. Smathers LibrariesUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations