Content uploaded by Nikoleta Đukanović
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nikoleta Đukanović on Jul 10, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social
science
digital data archive in Montenegro
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 1
Deliverable Lead: CeMI, IDM
Related Work package: WP1
Author(s): Nikoleta Tomović
Dissemination level: Public (PU)
Submission date: 1st April 2016
Project Acronym: SEEDS
Website: http://www.seedsproject.ch
Call: Scientific cooperation between Eastern
Europe and Switzerland (SCOPES 2013-2016)
Start date of project: 1st May 2015
Duration: 24 months
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 2
Version History
Version
Date
Changes
Modified by
1.0
November 12, 2015
Released version
CeMI
1.1
November 12, 2015
Revised version
FORS
2.0
June 3, 2016
Released version
CeMI
2.1
July 14, 2016
Revised version
FORS
3.0
August 14, 2016
Released version
CeMI
Acknowledgments
This report was developed as part of the “South-Eastern European Data Services” (SEEDS)
(www.seedsproject.ch) project. The participant organizations of the SEEDS project are:
Name
Short Name
Country
Centre for Monitoring and
Research, Podgorica
CeMI
Montenegro
Centre for Political Courage,
Pristina
CPC
Kosovo
Institute for Democracy and
Mediation, Tirana
IDM
Albania
Institute of Economic Sciences,
Belgrade
IES
Serbia
Saints Cyril and Methodius
University, Institute for
Sociological, Political and
Juridical Research, Skopje
ISPJR
Macedonia
Swiss Foundation for Research
in Social Sciences, Lausanne
FORS
Switzerland
University of Ljubljana, Social
Science Data Archive, Ljubljana
UL
Slovenia
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 3
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Methodology overview ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 The interview guide for research policy and funding institutions ...................................................... 5
2.2 The questionnaire for researchers ...................................................................................................... 5
2.3 The interview guide for research infrastructure institutions ............................................................. 5
3. Legal and institutional frameworks .......................................................................................................... 6
4. Survey on production, preservation and use of research data among researchers................................. 8
4.1 Introduction and methodology ........................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Characteristics of Respondents........................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Producing data .................................................................................................................................. 11
4.4 Methods of Data Gathering .............................................................................................................. 13
4.5 Sources of funding research ............................................................................................................. 14
4.6 Archiving practice and preferences .................................................................................................. 14
4.8 Attitudes towards data sharing and existence of national data archive .......................................... 21
4.9 Comments and remarks from researchers ....................................................................................... 23
5. Interviews with stakeholders .................................................................................................................. 25
6. Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 25
7. Annexes ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Annex 1. List of interviews ...................................................................................................................... 26
Annex 2. Questionnaires ......................................................................................................................... 27
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 4
1. Introduction
Social sciences have always depended on the secondary analysis of data to address new research
questions about society, politics, and economics, which is ever more important in a research
landscape where funding for new data collections is increasingly more difficult to come by, and
where governments expect more intensive exploitation of rich and existing publicly funded data to
advance science. It is primarily for this reason that national ministries of European countries and
the European Commission have invested heavily in the last few decades in data service
infrastructures that curate and preserve digital social science data and make these available free of
charge to the research community for secondary analyses. National data services offer large
collections of important data for re-use, thus reducing the costs for new collections. The “Open
data” movement in Europe in recent years has greatly strengthened the need for such
infrastructures, and practices geared toward secondary analysis are slowly changing the ways in
which research is carried out, with more emphasis on data sharing, best practices in data
management, and documentation.1
Many European countries now have long-established data services, many belonging to the
international umbrella network of data services CESSDA – Consortium of European Social Science
Data Archives. Yet, many European countries still do not have national data services, and so a great
deal of original research data is lost and remains forever out of reach. Efforts are now being made at
the European level to redress this problem and to establish new data services in countries where
none exist to date. The successful FP7 project SERSCIDA (January 2012 – June 2014), funded by the
European Commission, aimed to help establish data services in three West Balkan countries
(Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia). It involved intensive training, organisation building,
development of technical infrastructure, and promotion and outreach activities. One lesson from
SERSCIDA was that its model proved effective and could be extended to other countries with no
existing data services.
South-Eastern European Data Services – SEEDS is an international project aimed at establishing a
permanent infrastructure for archiving data obtained from researchers within the social sciences in
countries in which this project is implemented (Montenegro, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia), as
well as enabling secondary analysis of data produced by other researchers. 2
Target groups of this project are: key decision makers (key state institutions such as Ministry of
Science, Ministry of Education and Ministry for Information Society and Telecommunications), the
scientific community in the area of social sciences in Montenegro, as well as the general public.
2. Methodology overview3
To collect the information which could illustrate the existing potential and areas to be improved on,
three main groups of stakeholders who can play an important role in establishing, maintaining, and
using a data archive were identified. These three groups are:
1 More information available at http://seedsproject.ch/?page_id=2
2 More information about this project available at http://seedsproject.ch/
3 In this part, SEEDS has benefited from the SERSCIDA project. More information on methodology used in SERSCIDA is
available in the report “Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social sciences digital data base archive in
Croatia”.
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 5
● Research policy and funding bodies;
● Research/data service infrastructure institutions; and
● Researchers.
Considering the research policy and funding bodies, the survey aimed to assess the support for the
establishment a data archive both in financial terms and in a research policy setting. The research
infrastructures can provide both technical infrastructure, such as servers and data capacity, and
more service oriented infrastructure, such as survey collection software. When addressing the
research infrastructure, institutions undertaking research in the social sciences were included as
well.
Due to the difference between the three groups, a general survey which would cover all groups was
not practical. Instead, the instrument for each group was designed to fit the specific characteristics
of that group. In producing the instruments, SEEDS has benefited from experience from similar
instuments developed by the SERSCIDA project.
Each survey instrument is presented briefly below, with the main areas of interest and how the
data collection was done.
2.1 The interview guide for research policy and funding institutions
In this case the ministry which handles the research policies in Montenegro, as well as the major
research funders, were interviewed face to face. The purpose was to establish contact and
determine the possibilities for financing a data archive both in the establishment phase and in the
long-term. This also included questions and discussions about whether the funders had any
requirements related to research data, for example archiving of data or open access. To these
questions of requirements on archiving of research data, information was also sought as to whether
the current science policy includes anything regarding archiving research data. Another crucial
question in this context was the ministry’s and funders’ views of whether data archiving should be
carried out at national or local level.
2.2 The questionnaire for researchers
The instrument which was designed to collect information on the production, preservation, and use
of research data in the social sciences is an online survey questionnaire. The questionnaire
collected information about researchers' experience of documentation, re-use and dissemination of
research data, but also about which types of statistical/analytical software packages, methodology
and data are primarily used in their research. In addition to these areas the researchers were also
asked if their institution had any policy regarding long-term preservation and/or documentation of
data. This gives a brief overview of the demand for data, training and support and the supply of data
and of experience with documentation.
2.3 The interview guide for research infrastructure institutions
The instrument which was designed for the research infrastructures was a semi-structured
interview/survey. It was conducted face to face with representatives of research infrastructures
and research institutions within the social sciences. The respondents were asked to answer
questions about whether they could provide technical infrastructure or research services. They
were also asked if the institution had any policy or competences for long-term preservation and
documentation of data. The institutions and infrastructures were also asked if they had any
available technical capacity or data collecting services which could be valuable for the
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 6
establishment of a data archive. The survey was also a way of getting in touch with potential future
collaborators with the data archive.
3. Legal and institutional frameworks
The government of Montenegro sets the basic principles and guidelines for the development of
science and higher education. The two main administrative bodies responsible for the planning,
financing, and monitoring of the entire science and education system are the Ministry of Science
and Ministry of Education.
The Ministry of Science and its Sector for Scientific Research Activity perform administrative
tasks related to this field and professional tasks related to: the implementation of programs of
common interest through which priorities are implemented in this sector; development of plans
and programs of scientific research activities; making scientific policy and strategy; proposing and
implementing laws and other regulations; harmonization of laws and regulations with EU
regulations; drafting regulations on scientific and technological cooperation between Montenegro
and other countries (agreements, treaties, protocols, programs); Montenegro's participation in
multilateral, regional and bilateral programs and projects relating to science, research and
development; project implementation in the field of science financed from the EU pre-accession
funds - IPA and other international funds; implementation of bilateral scientific and technological
cooperation between Montenegro and other countries; promoting EU Framework Programme and
other programs of international cooperation; organization and coordination of the NCP (National
Contact person for the Framework programs) and individual programs or parts of programs;
monitoring of the implementation of the strategy of scientific research activities in Montenegro;
program of the Ministry for scientific and research activities; report on the work of the Government
in the field of scientific research; licensing of research institutions and keeping a register of
institutions; management of databases in the field of scientific research activities in accordance
with the law; and other activities within its scope.
The Ministry of Education is responsible for the development of the higher education system in
Montenegro;
The Ministry for Information Society and Telecommunications has no direct competences
when it comes to establishing research data archives, but gives support regarding software and
related issues;
The Council for Scientific Research Activity is the body that analyses issues related to science in
Montenegro and achievements in scientific research activity, makes expert proposals and opinions
regarding all issues in this field, and thus contributes to improving scientific research activity in
Montenegro.
When it comes to establishing a research data archive in the social sciences, the above-mentioned
implies that the Ministry of Science is competent for its establishment, whereas the Ministry for
Information Society and Telecommunications can only give support regarding software and related
issues.
The legal framework encompasses:
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 7
The Law on Scientific Research Activity4 which regulates archiving data in the field of scientific
research activity and which is the competence of the Ministry of Science, but the law does not
regulate the issue of research data archives.
The Law on Archival Activity5 which stipulates that archival activity includes: registration,
collection, maintenance, processing, protection, selection, use and publication of archival materials,
as well as operations and other activities in accordance with the law (Article 2). Archival activity is
activity of public interest, which is performed by creators and holders of current records and
archival materials and archives. Archival material includes the original and/or reproduced
documentary material of permanent significance for science, culture, legal and evidentiary and
other needs of individuals and legal entities, which originated from the work or activities of bodies
and organisations, legal entities and individuals, regardless of time, place and form of occurrence
and the media in which it is contained.
The Law on Personal Data Protection6 regulates the protection of personal data of individuals
and the control over the collection, processing and the use of personal data in Montenegro.
The Law on Copyright and Related Rights7 regulates the copyright and related rights, their
implementation and protection. Article 1 stipulates that this law establishes the right of authors of
literary, scientific and artistic works (copyright), rights of performers, phonogram producers, film
producers, broadcasting organisations, publishers and producers of databases (related rights).
Article 7 stipulates that independent works are collections of works or other material, including
databases, whereby the database is considered a collection of independent works, data or other
materials in any form, which is matched in a systematic or methodical way and individually
accessible. Protecting the collection by this law does not include protection of its content and does
not limit the right to the contents.
The Strategy of Scientific Research Activity of Montenegro (2008 - 2016) recognises as one of
the weaknesses when it comes to research in Montenegro bad transfer of research data to the
market. Also, the issue of intellectual property protection, according to this strategy, is becoming
one of the main issues that must be addressed on both an institutional and legal level.
The Strategy for Development and Funding of Higher Education (2011 - 2020) recognizes the
need of strengthening the research capacities in Montenegro through improving the infrastructure
for conducting research, directing professors and teaching assistants towards research activity, and
intensifying relations with research centres outside the university and within certain companies.
By reviewing the legal framework, it is obvious that in Montenegro there are laws regulating data
archiving, but they are not addressing the issue of archiving of so-called raw data. The current
situation regarding the relevant policy documents can be seen as a good opportunity and the right
moment to incorporate the developing guidelines into strategic documents and thus ensure a
steady sustainability of activities related to data archiving, preservation, and dissemination of the
research data in social sciences.
4 Law on Scientific Research Activity, Official Gazette of Montenegro No. 80/10
5 Law on Archival Activity, Official Gazett of Montenegro No. 49/10
6 Law on Personal Data Protection, Official Gazette of Montenegro No. 79/08
7 Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Official Gazette of Montenegro No. 37/11
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 8
4. Survey on production, preservation and use of research data among researchers
4.1 Introduction and methodology
Research on the perception and practice of gathering, processing, using and archiving of data in the
social science was conducted through an on-line questionnaire, which was developed within the
SEEDS project and used at the same time in Montenegro, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia. The first
cycle of data collection was done in September 2015, while, as the response rate was very low, it
has been repeated in December 2015, and finished when the total number of completed
questionnaires reached 64. Within the data cleaning process it was noticed that one respondent had
answered the questionnaire twice, and the total number was reduced to 63. In total, there were 83
researchers who indicated working in Montenegro and started with the survey, out of which 76%
(63) completed the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was distributed via e-mail to 336 addresses of researchers, universities, science
institutes and civil society organisations, including international organisations, which have a track
record in collecting and processing data in the social sciences. The response rate, taking into
account only fully completed questionnaires, was approximately 19%.
The survey was divided into the following sections:
• Characteristics of respondents in the sample;
• Producing data;
• Methods of data gathering;
• Archiving practice and preferences;
• Data use and secondary analyses;
• Attitudes towards data sharing and existence of national data archive;
• Comments and remarks from researchers.
Survey analizes also provide recommendations drawn from the research.
4.2 Characteristics of Respondents
As shown in figure 1, the majority of respondents hold a position of doctoral student, researcher or
professor at an academic institution. Out of the total number of 63 respondents, 25 (40%) are
doctoral students / research or teaching assistants, 17 (27%) are researchers / professors, 14
(22%) are managers (project leaders or head of an institution), 6 (10%) are undergraduate
students while 1 (2%) is an intern in the research institution.
Figure 1: Current principal activity of respondents
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 9
10%
40%
27%
11% 11%
2%
Undergraduate
student
Doctoral student
/ research or
h
Researcher /
professor
Project leader Head of
institution
Intern
What is your current principal activity? N=63
The majority of the survey participants who work in Montenegro, were at the moment of the survey
principally affiliated with a higher education institution, 43 (68%), while 19 (30%) stated an
affiliation to an NGO/Think tank (figure 2). One respondent declared as being affiliated to another
public institution. There were no respondents who indicated working in a public research
institutes.
Figure 2: Type of institution respondent is currently affiliated with
68%
30%
2%
Higher education institution NGO/Think tank Other
With what type of institution are you currently principally affiliated?
N=63
Around one-third of respondents or 35% (22 people) stated they work in the public sector (figure
3). In total, 23 people or 37% said they are employed in the private sector, while another 19, or
29% are working in NGOs. Out of 43 respondents who are affiliated principally with a higher
education institutions, 47% (20) are working in the public sector, while another 23 (53%) are
employed in the private sector. This means also that all respondents who stated to be working in
the private sector are affiliated with a private higher institutions. Regarding the NGO/Think tank
affiliations, 1 respondent stated working in a public institution, while another 18 were working in
NGOs.
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 10
Figure 3: Sector of work of respondents
35% 37%
29%
Public sector Private sector Nongovermental sector
Do you work in public, private or nongovernmental sector?
N=63
Respondents are working primarily in the following research disciplines, where the order of
answers is given by its frequency of appearance (figure 4): Political science (27%), Law (19%),
Economics (19%), Linguistics (10%), Sociology (8%), History (5%), Psychology (3%),
Journalism (3%), and one respondents or 2% per following disciplines: Human science,
Anthropology, Public administration and Library and information science. Regarding the most
frequent disciplines in the sample, with an appearance greater than 5%, it is interesting to mention
that all respondents who are engaged in a research in economics and linguistics are affiliated to a
higher education institution; there is no such affiliation homogeneity among respondents in this
sample who are implementing research in the fields of law or political science, while all
respondents that are active in the field of Sociology (5 people) stated an affiliation to Think
tanks/NGOs.
Figure 4: Principal research discipline of respondents
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 11
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
5%
8%
10%
19%
19%
Library and information sciences
Public administation
Antropology
Humanistic science
Journalism
Psychology
History
Sociology
Linguistic
Economics
Law
Political science
What is your principal research discipline? N=63
4.3 Producing data
Researchers were asked a set of questions regarding data production. 45 out of 63 participants in
the survey, or 71% stated that they have, in fact produced or helped to produce research data
within the last 5 years (figure 5). Out of 18 people who were not involved in producing any
research data, 10 are doctoral students or teaching assistants, 3 undergraduate students and 1 is an
intern. The majority of those 18 people, as we assume, are affiliated with a higher educational
institution (15 people). The last finding indicates that it is possible that those respondents, as being
affiliated with a research institution will soon be involved in data production in case it is relevant to
their field of scientific work.
Figure 5: Self-reported experience of respondents on data producing in last 5 years
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 12
Half of the respondents who provided answers on the number of datasets produced within the last
5 years stated that there were 1 to 5 datasets they were working with (figure 6). One third out of 42
respondents that provided an answer to this question clamed producing more than 11 datasets
during the period indicated. Although we cannot talk about these findings being representative to
whole population of Montenegrin social science reserchers, it could be worth mentioning that in the
category of those researchers who reported producing more than 11 datasets in the last 5 years (14
people) 8 respondents are coming from NGOs, 5 from the private sector and one from the public
sector.
Figure 6: Self-reported number of datasets produced by respondents in the last 5 years
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 13
Half of the researchers who have experience in the last 5 years with data collection and processing,
have finished with the last filed work or data collection phase quite recently, in 2015, and a very
solid majority 82% within the previous two years – in 2014 or 2015 (figure 7). This data is
supporting the relevance of the researchers’ answers on experiences, opinions and
reccomendations related with the data gathering and archiving, presented in the following
chapters.
Figure 7: Self-reported period of completing data collection phase by respondents in the last 5
years
4.4 Methods of Data Gathering
There were 45 respondents who provided information on the method of data collection within the
last research project. A majority mentioned structured interviews as a main method (51%),
following quantitative methods: questionnaires, face to face interviews, CATI (42%) (figure 8).
Focus groups were indicated by one-third of respondents - 33%. A similar frequency can be found
with the usage of online questionnaires (36% of respondents), while some researchers had
reported using experiments, archive research, and non-structured interviews as the data collection
methods.
Figure 8: Self-reported data collection method within the last research
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 14
4.5 Sources of funding research
The dominant way of funding research projects among respondents is through international
funding or projects (60%), followed by the funding from the own institution (21%) and the national
science funding bodies (16%). It is indicative that there were 9% of respondents who had reported
funding research from their own resources (figure 9). Public funding from other sources than
national science funding bodies, and funding through the private sector are rarely reported within
this survey.
Figure 9: Sources of research funding
Regarding size of the team 38 percent of researchers reported 1-3 others working on their research
project, while every third (33%) respodents was in team with 4 or 5 other reserchers. Usually,
teams are not larger than 10 people. Also, it is a rare case when a researcher is implementing a
research project alone (Table 1).
Table 1: Size of research team
Apart from you, how many researchers were involved in this research
project?
Frequency
Percent
0
3
7
1-3
17
38
4-5
15
33
6-10
7
16
11+
3
7
Total
45
100,0
4.6 Archiving practice and preferences
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 15
Regarding archiving practice and preferences, a majority, 96% of researchers, reported that they
are preserving the collected data (figure 10). Among 45 researchers who answered the question,
there were only 2 (4%) who reported not keeping/retaining the data.
Figure 10: Keeping/retaining data after completing last project
Although a majority reported keeping/retaining the data, 43 researchers, when provided with
multiple choices of answers, a majority, 65% reported keeping raw data, more than a half (56%)
keep data prepared for analysing, 53% retain cleaned data, while only 14% reported keeping
well documented data with metadata (figure 11).
Not only that data are not well described, but also, standards for data documentation and meta-data
are rarely implied. In this sample only 12% among those researchers who keep data are using any
internal standards, while only 2% reported using international documentation/metadata
standards. More precisely, there was no researcher in this sample who reported using Dublin core
(DC) or ISO 11179 documentation/metadata standard for description of their research data, while
one (1) reported using the The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) standard, and 4 their own,
internal/institutional documentation standard.
Figure 11: Which data were kept/retained after completing last project
Regarding the location where the data from the last project were kept, a majority of researchers in
this sample reported keeping documents on their computer (58%), one-third (33%) reported
keeping several copies of the project data, and 28% reported deposing data on a colleague’s
computer (figure 12). Data archive/repository is a reported choice for 19% out of 43 respondents
who answered this question. The server at their local institution/university is quite an unusual
place for data deposition for Montenegrin researchers (5% of respondents reported using a local
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 16
server of the institution). One respondent (2%) reported using special disks, and one other (2%)
using another space (Dropbox) for data depositing.
Figure 12: Where data were kept after completing last project
As shown in the figure 13, in the population of respondents who keep data, a bit more than half,
(51%), reported that research team members are granted access to the project data from the last
project, while for 21%, access is granted only to the project leader. The same frequency, 21% gave
the answer “members of my institution“, while 23% reported that access is granted to the broader
scientific community. Only 14% of researchers reported that data from their last project are
granted to anyone (open access).
Figure 13: Who have access to data after completing last project
On the other hand, current practice is not what researchers are assuming as an ideal level of access
to research data they were working with on their last scientific project. Almost one-third (31%)
would prefer to grant open access to their research data, 29% to the broader scientific community,
and only 9% to the most restricted level of access – just to the project leader (figure 14). This
finding indicates the need for a broader discussion of data keeping, preparing, protecting, archiving
and accessing, among the scientific community in Montenegro.
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 17
Figure 14: Who should have access to data after completing last project, in the ideal case
It is very interesting that there were no respondents who reported that he/she would be totally or
probably against the idea of providing their data to a social science data archive with guarantees
that the data would be preserved for a long time in a secure environment, and shared only with
accredited researchers. Almost half (49%) of the respondents reported that they would certainly
give their data to a national data archive in that case, while another 35% answered that they would
probably provide data to an archive (figure 15). Only 16% were undecided regarding this matter
and were not sure what would be their decision regarding data deposit.
Figure 15: Attitude towards social science data archive
This survey, at least regarding this sample, shows that for researchers in social sciences sharing of
research data is very important in their own discipline. This is the opinion of 78% of respondents,
while every fifth 21% stated that it is somewhat important (figure 16). We can conclude that within
this sample there is a consensus of social science reserchers that sharing of data is important.
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 18
Figure 16: Importance of data sharing
4.7 Use of Data and secondary analyses
The practice of sharing research data for a secondary analysis exists, as reported by 51% out of the
45 respondents (figure 17). Among those who reported having experienced data sharing with other
researchers, 36% stated it was taking place quite recently, within 12 months prior to the survey.
Figure 17: Data sharing experience
18%
16%
31%
Nobody outside my team had ever used research
data that I/we have produced
Yes, I know of an occassion when my/our data was
used, but this was more than a year ago
Yes, I know that my/our research data was used for
secondary anaylsis recently, the most recent occasion
being within th
I am not sure if anybody used my/our data for
secondary analysis
Do you know if any other researcher outside your own team had used
for secondary analysis any of the research data that you produced?
N=45
The most frequent barrier for conducting a secondary analysis in Montenegro, that respondents
chose out of given responses was that `the data are existing but are poorly documented and usable`
(43%), followed by the statement that `researchers are not trained well enough in secondary
analysis` (35%),` data exists but are not accessible` (32%),` not enough data exists` (27%), while
17% report that `it is not part of the research culture` (figure 18). Those data accentuate the need
for providing training to researchers both in data analysis and preservation.
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 19
Figure 18: Barriers to conducting secondary analysis
27%
32%
35%
17%
8%
2%
Not enough relevant data exist
Data exist but are not accessible
Data exist but are poorly documented and unusable
Researchers are not trained well enough in…
It is not part of the research culture
Don't know
No unique data base
In general, what are the barriers to conducting secondary analysis in
your country? N=63
Networking is of big importance within current practice regarding data sharing, followed by
databases with open or semi-open access (websites of projects). Among given possibilities,
researchers stated most frequently having experience in using data provided through networks of
colleagues outside their research unit (71%), followed by websites of projects (53%), data archives
from other countries (41%) and their own research units (41%), while 38% stated the National
Statistical office, and 26% their own institution (figure 19). It is indicative that research unit,
research institutions and national statistical office are less of a common source of data, which could
be a result of a small scientific community but also lack of a national archive for secondary data, as
well as a lack of training in archiving data.
Figure 19: Sources of data produced by others
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 20
41%
26%
41%
38%
53%
Your own research unit
Network of colleagues outside of your research unit
Your own institution
Data archives from other countries
National Statistical Office
Websites of projects
There are different ways to obtain research data produced by others.
Please indicate all the sources that you ever used successfully to obtain
such data. N=34
In order to collect some information regarding the data produced by Montenegrin scientists, the
question of which software used when analysing data was asked. Within this sample 38 people
(60%) were involved in quantitative analyses, out of which 66% are using SPSS/PASW and 50% are
using Excel (figure 20). A small number of researchers are using Stata (8%) or R (5%).
More people in this sample are using qualitative than quantitative analyses. Data from qualitative
analyses were produced by 47 researchers in the sample, or 75%. The most common is absence of
any software in analyzing qualitative data, which is reported by 81% researchers who are a part of
the sample and implementing qualitative analysis. There are rare cases of researchers using any of
the following softwares: QDA Miner (6%), NVivo (4%), AHP (2%), RQDA (2%), CAT (2%) (figure
20).
Figure 20 and 21: Software used for conducting quantitative and qualitative data analysis
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 21
4.8 Attitudes towards data sharing and existence of national data archive
Almost all researchers are aware that their work would benefit from access to data of other
researchers, at least moderately (figure 22). Most of the researchers share the opinion that their
scientific work would benefit considerably both from research data produced in their country
(65%) and international research data (83%).
Figure 22: Assessment of the potential benefit of better access to data
Interesting data are collected related to the opinion of respondents on the prevalent attitude with
respect to sharing one's own research data. All respondents answered this question, and it is
obvious that on average, the closer the relation is, the more openness there is for sharing. 81% of
respondents stated being very willing to share data, which is an impressive result and provides
additional argument for introduction of data archiving, especially when paired with common
opinion that researchers would benefit from data of other colleagues. A few respondents
commented that there is a lack of trust among researchers, question of academic propriety is a
relevant one, ethics of research could be jeopardized, and concerns arise in relation to possibility of
data being misused.
Figure 23: Assessment of willingness to share data
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 22
Access to data is valuable also when taking into consideration that 76% of respondents have
teaching responsibilities. In the context of their academic work, 77% of them analyse or discuss
research data regularly or sometimes (N=48). Out of the number related to the last group, 44 have
indicated which data are used in their teaching and most frequently these are: Publically available
data and datasets (80%), Data from past projects that they have participated in (66%), while 27%
indicated data collected by students through coursework (figure 24). Rarely, teachers are using
artificially created datasets. Again, these results show that the existence of a national data archive
could be an additional benefit for academic institutions and students.
Figure 24: Data usage in teaching
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 23
The previous statement is recognised also in the opinion of the researchers involved in teaching
that their work with students would benefit considerably (56%) or moderately (29%) from more
access to national or international data (figure 25).
Figure 25: Assessment of benefit of accessing data produced by other in teaching
Finally, a strong majority, 76% holds the opinion that it would be very important to have an
institution specialised in data archiving in Montenegro (figure 26).
Figure 26: Assessment of usefulness of introducing an institution specialized in data archiving in
Montenegro.
4.9 Comments and remarks from researchers
Researchers provided additional comments related to social science studies and attitude of
researchers towards data archiving, sharing, in Montenegro or the likelihood of success of a
national data archive at the service of researchers. Comments were provided by 11 respondents
and are classified in 4 groups and summerized.
• Scientific research in Montenegro suffers from many obstacles, barriers and
shortcomings
• Social science community in Montenegro is facing with lot of obsticles, and reserchers
have mentions some of them, such as: lack of support by insitutions, lack of relevant and
available data, lack of use of modern research methods, obstacles in the data collection, ect.
Researchers’ working conditions need to be improved. Research community also
suffers from the lack of the access to the important scientific databases, scientific journals.
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 24
There was a suggestion that scientific research community as such has to be
institutionalized.
• Business and academic (science) sectors should be better connected
1. There is a need for raising awareness of the business community of the importance of the
research itself, of the information exchange and of the networking of the business and the
scientific community.
• More clear standards need to be introduced in the scientific research in Montenegro
1. Standards have to be introduced in data collection, analyzing, archiving and presenting.
2. Researchers need additioanl trainings in methodology of data collecting and processing, on
secondary data keeping, using and on data privacy protection. There is a need of the unified,
synchronized, harmonized system of official statistics.
3.
• Montenegro needs national data archive, but certain conditions has to be satisfied
4. National data archive would be very valuable for reserchers.
5. The purpose of the archives has to be clear. Special attention should be paid to data
protection, keeping and archiving.
6. A Montenegrin data archive has to be compatibile with those that are used in countries that
are leaders in social sciences research.
7. Access to international data has to be granted to Montenegrin reserchers.
Recommendations regarding results of conducted quantitative survey:
Montenegro should have centralized National secondary data archive.
Montenegrin researchers in the social science need to have better access to scientific databases.
This finding indicates the need for a broader discussion on data keeping, preparing, protecting,
archiving and accessing, among the scientific community in Montenegro.
Awareness has to be raised of the importance and benefits of data archiving and sharing with other
researchers.
National standards and procedures which would be in international compliance regarding data
collecting, keeping, preparing, protecting, archiving and accessing should be introduced in
academic institutions.
Those standards and procedures should be an integral part of the call for proposals for public
fundings.
Montenegrin researchers need better training in methodology, tools and international standards of
data collection, processing, keeping, and archiving.
More funding has to be available for research in social science, especially as Montenegro lacks data.
Research institutions, academic institutions, think thanks, NGOs that are producing scientific data,
should established closer cooperation between themselves and with and national statistical office
in process of data collecting, analyzing, archiving and sharing.
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 25
Research community has to face with lack of trust among researchers, question of academic
propriety, and concerns in relation to possibility of data being misused.
Researchers’ working conditions need to be improved.
5. Interviews with stakeholders
Besides conducting a detailed analysis of the legal and institutional framework, the research team
conducted-interviews with institutions dealing with the development and the quality of scientific
areas, and the design and implementation of scientific policies. Through interviews, issues relevant
for setting the foundation for establishing adequate and permanently sustainable infrastructure for
a social science data archive were discussed. Topics announced for discussion included analysis of
the need for such activity, existing policies on science infrastructure and the legal framework, as
well as possible institutional solutions for the services to be shaped within this project.
A conclusion of the conducted interviews implies that it is very important, but also not so simply to
establish a permanent data-base that would be used by all researchers from the country for
archiving raw data. Instead, at this moment, this is possible for concrete research results only. Also,
there are no separated systems for data archiving in the field of social sciences. Raw data, data that
have not been processed or analysed, are not being archived. On the other hand, while financing
scientific research projects, there are no requirements by funders or executors regarding archiving
data obtained through that particular research. Even though all-publications are being archived in
the Central Library, raw data, i.e. data collected in specific research projects that are recorded in
matching readable format and used for analytic purposes, such as survey data, interviews in sound
files, video footage, notes, images, are not being archived.
Decision-makers that were inteviewed (12 institutions and 16 persons) stated that they had never
met with requirements of research institutes regarding archiving these data. The Ministry of
Science does not plan to give funds for this purpose, because they have a “perfectly stable system“
when it comes to archiving primary data. Also, interviewers have a negative opinion regarding the
idea of defining concrete mechanisms of data archiving in the social sciences, because they
consider that this issue cannot be solved by separating sciences. That is, they consider that social
sciences should not be a particular category separated from natural sciences.8 Also, within ESFRI
(European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures), Montenegro met no requirements
regarding this issue. The Central National Library, as well as university libraries, do not have the
software or system through which people can electronically access the data. As one of the key
reasons, representatives of the Ministry of Science have stated that there were published more than
1,600 studies in all fields of science since 1970, with financial support of the Ministry.
6. Recommendations
According to the key analysis of the legal and institutional framework, as well as key conclusions
obtained from conducted interviews with stakeholders, the project team defined the following
recommendations:
1. Make sure that research data archiving is well recognised in relevant legal documents. Amend the
Law on Archival Activity in order to recognise research data archiving, i.e. archiving of so-called
“raw” data. The content of research data should be subject to the Law on Copyright and Related
Rights. In line with this, it will be necessary to regulate the access to data based on consent of the
author (owner) of the data.
8 As representatives of the Ministry of Sciences explained, the Law defines areas of sciences, in accordance
with the FRASCATI.
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 26
2. Establish closer contacts with national bodies for creating an educational, scientific and
technological strategy. Make sure that data archiving is well recognised in relevant policy
documents.
3. Continue to explore options for establishing a social science data archive. At this stage of the
project, it seems like a future data archive in Montenegro should be organised on a national level.
4. Build cooperation with all relevant higher education and research institutions in Montenegro
towards building a network of people who will work closely with researchers employed at these
institutions. Members of this network could provide local support to scientists, facilitate data
archiving and data sharing, and serve as mediators between the central data archive and local
institutions.
7. Annexes
Annex 1. List of interviews
Initial contacts with institutions dealing with the design and implementation of scientific policies,
financing scientific areas and in general, dealing with development and quality of scientific areas
were made in June 2015.
In the letter sent to the above-mentioned institutions the project SEEDS was presented, as well as
issues that the project covers, specific objectives to be accomplished by the project, and the manner
of accomplishing those objectives. The institutions were asked for an interview in order to discuss
issues relevant for successful carrying out of the project objectives as well as for setting the
foundation for establishing adequate and permanently sustainable infrastructure for a social
science data archive. Topics announced for discussion included analysis of the needs for such
activity, existing policies on science infrastructure and legal framework, as well as possible
institutional solutions for the services to be shaped within this project.
The following institutions were contacted:
• Ministry of Science
• Ministry for Information Society and Telecommunications
• INVO HERIC
• Ministry of Education
• University of Montenegro
• Center of Information System of the University of Montenegro
• Rectorate of the University of Montenegro
• University of Donja Gorica
• Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Council for Scientific Research Activity
• Library of the University of Montenegro
• Library of University of Donja Gorica
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 27
Annex 2. Questionnaires
Questionnaire 1. Key stakeholders
Project: South-Eastern European Data Services – SEEDS
Center for monitoring and research CeMI is implementing the international project South-Eastern
European Data Services – SEEDS, coordinated by Swiss national centre of expertise in the social
sciences, with expert support of Consortium of European Social Science Data Archives. The project
is implemented in four Western Balkans countries: Montenegro, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia.
The aim of this project is to establish permanent infrastructure for archiving data obtained from
researches within the social sciences in countries in which this project is implemented
(Montenegro, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia), as well as enabling secondary analysis of data
produced by other researchers.
In this questionnaire, we are particularly interested in your research practices and needs related to
collecting empirical data, their perservation and use for secondary analysis.
(For this survey, the term "data" refers to raw data, that is, information collected in specific
research projects that is recorded in matching readable format and used for analytic purposes. This
could be survey data, interviews in sound files, video footage, notes, images, etc. By "data", we do
not mean analyses, descriptions, statistics, facts, or conclusions that appear in reports, papers,
websites, or scientific publications.)
Questions
1. Does your institution have official policy or relevant dcument regulating permanent archiving of
data obtained through researches within social sciences?
2. Can you describe that policy or document?
3. Is there a policy regarding open access to results of research within social sciences?
4. Considering the fact that Montenegro is associated member of European Strategy Forum on
Research Infrastructures, can you give us information on Montengro’s experience regarding this
issue?
5. Are there any requirements regarding research data when it comes to funding projects or other
activities?
6. Have you met the need of archiving data obtained through researches within social sciences?
7. Have you met requirements of research institutes and institutions regarding research data
archiving aimed at their perservation and further analysis in future researches?
8. What is your vision of institutional framework for data archiving within institutions dealing with
social sciences? Do you prefer centralized or decentralized model?
9. What are sources for funding activites related to collection, dissemination and preservation of
research data? Do you plan to fund these activites?
National data archive
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 28
10. To what extent are data obtained through research within social sciences permanently
preserved in Montenegro?
11. Can you make an estimation of percentage of data lost in Montenegro due to lack of permanent
perservation in secure environment?
12. In your opinion, is it useful and to what extent to establish a national data archive in
Montenegro?
13. Can you tell us about your vision of that archive, about its functions and services, structure and
relations with other relevant institutions?
14. Are there national data archives within other sciences in Montenegro?
15. What would be the optimal funding model for national data archive?
16. Can you tell us more about plans of your institution in this area?
Research team of CeMI
Questionnaire 2. Libraries, Montenegrin Academy of Sciencies and Arts
Project: Servisi South-Eastern European Data Services – SEEDS
Center for monitoring and research CeMI is implementing international project South-Eastern
European Data Services – SEEDS, coordinated by the Swiss centre of expertise in the social sciences,
with expert support of Consortium of European Social Science Data Archives. The project is
implemented in four Western Balkans countries: Montenegro, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia.
The aim of this project is to establish permanent infrastructure for archiving data obtained from
researches within social sciences in countries in which this project is implemented (Montenegro,
Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia), as well as enabling secondary analysis of data produced by other
researchers.
In this questionnaire, we are particularly interested in your research practices and needs related to
collecting empirical data, their preservation and use for secondary analysis.
(For this survey, the term "data" refers to raw data, that is, information collected in specific
research projects that is recorded in maching readable format and used for analytic purposes. This
could be survey data, interviews in sound files, video footage, notes, images, etc. By "data", we do
not mean analyses, descriptions, statistics, facts, or conclusions that appear in reports, papers,
websites, or scientific publications.)
Questions
Relevant documents
1. Does your institution have official policy or relevant dcument regulating permanent archiving of
data obtained through researches within social sciences?
2. Can you describe that policy or document?
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 29
Existing infrastructure and data archiving capacities
3. Does your institution presereve data obtained through researches?
4. Does your institution preserve and disseminate data from
Social sciences;
Humanities or
Other.
Data preservation
5. Can you describe the process of data preservation within your institution?
6. Are data preserved within your institution safe and to what extent – are data preserved in
protected servers? Are there backups or formal procedures regarding data protection?
7. Are data preserved in a manner that ensures that they are accessible in next 20 or 50 years? (i.e.
they are preserved with following descriptive documentation in format that doesn’t require
licensed software)
Documenting data and standards
8. Does your institution use any standard for documenting research data, such as DDI, Dublin Core?
9. Does your institution comply with basic standards for ensuring validity of digital archives, such
as OAIS or Data Seal of Approval?
9. Does your institution participate in any international project that requires harmonizing groups of
data from different countries in order to enable their comparison?
10. Does your institution make use of any thesaurus to translate and/or index your data?
11. Does your institution have any experience with particular data service tools for the social
sciences, such as NESSTAR, FEDORA or Dataverse? (If yes:) Could you briefly describe the purpose
for which you use these and your experiences of using them?
Accessibility and dissemination of data
12. Does your institution allow access to the research data that it preserves?
13. Who is allowed to have access to the data? (Explore if respondent answers researchers, whether
this includes researchers in their own organization only or also in other organisations)
14. What are the conditions that must be met to access these data?
15. Do you have some kind of authentication system that identifies who is eligible to access the
data?
16. Are all of the data equally accessible? That is, are there some data that are more accessible than
others?
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 30
17. By what means does your institution disseminate its research data? For example, are the data
sent out on CDs, or are they available on screen, or can they be downloaded from a website?
18. Does your institution have a data catalogue that allows people to find the data that they are
looking for? (If yes:) Is the catalogue visible outside of your institution, and what software is used to
enable this?
19. Does your institution use any legal agreements for storing, disseminating, and/or using
research data? This might be in the form of deposit contracts or end-user licenses. (If yes:) Could
you give a brief description of these legal agreements? (Also, ask if they could send them to us by e-
mail.)
20. Do the intellectual property rights remain with the researcher/data producer, or are they
transferred to your institution?
21. Does your institution receive any external funding for archiving/data service activities? (If no:)
How is the work of data preservation and dissemination paid for at your institution? (If yes, ask how
much, whether the income is constant and whether it is dedicated to particular activities, e.g.,
preservation, dissemination, user support).
22. In your view, would your institution do more to preserve and disseminate research data if it had
more resources?
Staff capacities
23. Does your institution have dedicated staff for the preservation and dissemination of research
data? (If yes:) How many?
24. Do these staff members have specific training in data preservation and dissemination? (If yes:)
Please explain.
25. What type of additional training does your staff require in order to obtain adequate knowledges
reagrding standards and practices related to this issue?
26. Has your staff worked with following software:
1. SAS
2. SPSS
3. STATA
4. R
5. MATLAB
6. Excel
7. Other
Research team of CeMI
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 31
Questionnaire 3. Researchers
First, we would like to get some information about you.
• What is your current principal activity? (select only one)
a. student
b. research assistant / doctoral student
c. researcher / professor
d. project leader
e. head of institution
f. other (specify) _________
• With what type of institution are you currently principally affiliated? (select only one)
a. university
b. public research institute
c. private research institute/company
d. NGO/Think Tank organization
e. other (specify)___________
• Do you work in public, private or NGO sector?
a. public
b. private
c. NGO
• What is your principal research discipline? (select only one)
Anthropology
Sociology
Psychology
Education science
Political science
Economics
Social policy
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 32
Communication science and media
Social and economic history
Law
Administrative and management sciences
History
Other (specify)_____________
• What country are you working in? (select only one)
a. Albania
b. Kosovo
c. Macedobia
d. Montenegro
Your research
• In the context of your research activity within the past 5 years, did you produce or help to
produce any research data? This could be quantitative and/or qualitative data.
a. yes
b. no
c.
• During the past 5 years, approximately how many datasets did you produce or help to
produce?
number of datasets ______
The following questions are about your most recent research effort which involved data
collection:
• In which year was the fieldwork (or data collection phase) completed?
year ______
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 33
• Which data collection method was applied in this research? (e.g. online questionnaire,
structured interview, focus groups, experiment, ...)
______________________________________________
If research involved data collection through application of several methods, list all of them, separated
by;
• What was the approximate scope of raw data collected in this research? (for example: 8000
respondents; or 15 focus groups; or 50 firms; or 700 case reports; or 500 newspaper articles;
or 200 hrs of video footage)
_______________________________________________
• How was this research financed?
a. Research agency/ministry
b. International funding/project
c. Own funding
d. Private sector
e. Other (specify)________
• How many researchers were involved in this research project (not counting yourself)? _____
Data preservation
• After you completed your last research project, did you or your research team members
save the data?
a. yes
b. no
• What kind of data was kept from your last project? (multiple choice)
a. raw data
b. cleaned data (coded, anonymised, ..)
c. prepared for analysis (with transformations, with created indexes, recoded)
d. well documented with metadata
e. don't know
• Did you use any special documentation/metadata standard for description of your
research/data?
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 34
a. DDI
b. DC
c. ISO 11179
d. Internal documentation standard
e. don't know
f. other (specify)_______
• Where is the data from your last project kept? (multiple choice)
a. on my computer
b. on my colleague's computer
c. several copies on different computers and/or different media
d. server at my local institution/university
e. data archive/repository
f. don't know
• Who may be granted access to the data from your last project for research use? (last level is
most inclusive)
a. just the project leader
b. team members
c. members of my institution
d. broader scientific community
e. publicly available (open access)
f. other (specify)___________
• In your opinion, what would be the ideal level of access to these data?
a. just the project leader
b. team members only
c. members of my institution only
d. broader scientific community only
e. publicly available (open access)
f. I do not know
g. other (specify)
• If you knew that your data would be preserved for the long-term in a secure environment,
and shared only with accredited researchers, would you be willing to provide your data to a
social science data archive? (select one)
a. Yes, certainly
b. Yes, probably
c. Not sure
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 35
d. No, probably not
e. No, certainly not
Data sharing and secondary analysis
Now we would like to ask you several questions regarding the sharing of data. By this we mean
allowing researchers to access and use data that they themselves did not produce. Secondary
analysis is defined as analysis of data that were produced by others, where one was not involved in
the original research.
• With respect to your own discipline, how important is the sharing of research data? (select
one)
a. very important
b. somewhat important
c. not very important
d. not at all important
e. no opinion
• Do you know if any other researcher outside your own team used any of the research data
that you produced for secondary analysis during the past year?
a. No one outside my team has ever used research data that we produced
b. Yes, but it was over a year ago
c. Yes, and it was less than a year ago
d. I am not sure
• How often do you analyse quantitative data that were not produced by yourself or your
research team? (select one)
Year (write number)
Month (write number)
• And how often do you analyse qualitative data that were not produced by yourself or your
research team? (select one)
Year (write number)
Month (write number)
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 36
• In general, what are the barriers to conducting secondary analysis in your country? (check
all that apply)
a. not enough relevant data exist
b. data exist but are not accessible
c. data exist and are accessible, but are poorly documented and unusable
d. researchers are not well enough trained in secondary analysis
e. it is not part of the research culture
f. I do not know
g. other (specify)____________
• What statistical software program(s) do you use most often for your quantitative analyses?
a. I have never used quantitative analysis
b. Excel
c. R
d. SAS
e. STATA
f. SPSS/PASW
g. other (specify)_______
• What software program(s) do you use most often for your qualitative analyses? (select one)
a. I have never use qualitative analysis
b. I do not use software for qualitative analysis
c. Atlas.ti
d. Nvivo
e. MAXQDA
f. QDA Miner
g. CAT
h. RQDA
i. Dedoose
j. Other (specify)
• Would your research benefit if you had greater access to more data produced in your
country? (select one)
a. Yes, certainly
b. Yes, probably
c. No, not very much
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 37
d. No, not at all
• Would your research benefit if you had greater access to more international data? (select
one)
a. Yes, certainly
b. Yes, probably
c. No, not very much
d. No, not at all
• Does your professional activity include teaching responsibilities?
a. yes
b. no
• In the context of your teaching, how often do you analyze or discuss research data? (select
one)
a. regularly
b. sometimes
c. rarely
d. never
• Which type of data do you use in your teaching? (check all that apply)
a. Data collected by students themselves
b. Data from previous projects of your project team
c. Publicly available data and datasets (e.g. international)
d. Artificially generated data or datasets included with the coursework
e. Other (specify)
• Would your teaching benefit if you had greater access to more national or international
data? (select one)
a. Yes, certainly
b. Yes, probably
c. No, not very much
d. No, not at all
• In your view, how important/useful could be an institution that specializes in data archiving
in your country? (select one)
SEEDS: D3 – Analysis of existing potentials for the establishment of a social science digital data archive in Montenegro 38
a. very important
b. somewhat important
c. not very important
d. not at all important
e. no opinion
• Please include any comments that you think would be helpful for understanding the social
science research community in your country, or the likelihood of success of a national data
infrastructure/archive at the service of researchers.
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
• If you are interested in archiving of and access to research data in your country, please
leave us your name, institutional affiliation, and e-mail address so that we can send you
further information about our project.
_________________________________________________________
Your contact data will be kept confidential.
• Can we associate your email address with answers about recent data collections in which
you participated (questions Q5-Q10 only)?
a. yes
b. no
Thank you for your participation!