ISSN: 2474-3542 Journal homepage: http://journal.calaijol.org

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Institutional Research Data
Management Strategies: A Contributive Justice Approach
Sabrina Wong
Abstract:
Research data management (RDM) is a field of emerging concern for academic librarians.
As funder agencies increasingly mandate institutions and researchers to ethically and
responsibly manage their research data, academic librarians are frequently tasked with
creating institutional strategies and services to support researchers. This article explores
how a racialized librarian at a medium-sized, teaching-focused Canadian university created
an institutional research data management strategy through a process informed by critical
librarianship research and contributive justice (Gomberg, 2016; Honma & Chu, 2018). It
examines the lack of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) principles in both funder
directives and RDM research literature and proposes an approach to do institutional RDM
work in an EDI-centered way.
To cite this article:
Wong, S. (2024). Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Institutional Research Data
Management Strategies: A Contributive Justice Approach. International Journal of
Librarianship, 8(4), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2024.vol8.4.339
To submit your article to this journal:
Go to https://ojs.calaijol.org/index.php/ijol/about/submissions

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP, 8(4), 97-113
ISSN: 2474-3542

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Institutional Research Data
Management Strategies: A Contributive Justice Approach
Sabrina Wong, Capilano University, Canada

ABSTRACT
Research data management (RDM) is a field of emerging concern for academic librarians. As
funder agencies increasingly mandate institutions and researchers to ethically and responsibly
manage their research data, academic librarians are frequently tasked with creating institutional
strategies and services to support researchers. This article explores how a racialized librarian at a
medium-sized, teaching-focused Canadian university created an institutional research data
management strategy through a process informed by critical librarianship research and contributive
justice (Gomberg, 2016; Honma & Chu, 2018). It examines the lack of equity, diversity, and
inclusion (EDI) principles in both funder directives and RDM research literature and proposes an
approach to do institutional RDM work in an EDI-centered way.
Keywords: research data management (RDM); equity, diversity, inclusion (EDI); vocational awe;
invisible labour; Canada

INTRODUCTION
In 2021, three federal research funding agencies in Canada published the unified Tri-Agency
Research Data Management Policy, which acted as an impetus for some small- and medium-sized,
teaching-focused Canadian higher-education institutions to develop and implement research data
management (RDM) services for their researchers. Among its requirements, the policy calls for
institutions to publish an institutional research data management strategy in order to remain
eligible for Tri-Agency funding opportunities (Canada, 2021a). While the policy outlines some
points that institutions should include in their strategies, institutions were otherwise left with
flexibility to craft their strategy for their local context and needs. Importantly, the data sovereignty
of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, collectives and organizations was emphasized as a
distinct item in the policy (Canada, 2021a); yet the policy lacked a more expansive application of
equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) principles despite the agencies releasing the Tri-Agency EDI
Action Plan 2018-2025 in the same year. The research literature on RDM is similarly quiet on the
application of EDI principles in institutional RDM strategies and services. Scholars explore how
the RDM space is negotiated between different groups at institutions (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022;
Castle, 2019; Cox et al., 2016; Cox et al, 2017; Donner, 2023; Faniel & Connaway, 2018; Howie
& Kara, 2022; Pinfield et al., 2014; Verbaan & Cox, 2014), but do not address how systemic
inequities impact these collaborations.

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

98

The terms equity, diversity, and inclusion can be used to identify and parse systemic
inequities. Equity, diversity, and inclusion are interconnected concepts that are sometimes treated
as one; however, they are distinct. Diversity is about individuals and the variety of unique
characteristics and experiences they each possess (Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion
[CCDI], 2023). Diversity may be expressed through race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
religion, economic status, and physical abilities, but is not limited to those characteristics (CCDI,
2023). Equity is where people are “treated according to their diverse needs in a way that enables
all people to participate, perform, and engage to the same extent” (CCDI, 2023, p. 10). Inclusion
is a “mindful and equitable effort” to “creat[e] a culture that embraces, respects, accepts, and values
diversity” (CCDI, 2023, p. 11). While scholars such as Sara Ahmed (2012) have problematized
EDI’s overuse by institutions, these concepts may still be useful in discussing the gaps that exist
at institutions.
As a racialized librarian charged with creating my institution’s strategy, I felt the notable
absence of EDI principles in the RDM literature reflected the unspoken whiteness dominant in our
libraries and institutions, as identified in critical librarianship research (Chiu et al., 2021; Ettarh,
2018; Honma & Chu, 2018; Jordan, 2023; Roh, 2018). In this article, concepts developed in critical
librarianship are used to address the gaps in the RDM literature; namely how vocational awe
(Ettarh, 2018) and invisible labour (Jordan, 2023) shape institutional RDM work. Drawing on the
contributive justice model (Gomberg, 2016, Honma & Chu, 2018), this article offers a reframe of
intra-institutional collaborations. I will discuss and reflect upon my process to create a strategy
based on relationships with the people who would be affected by it and how that shifted the strategy
creation process from an administrator-led one to a colleague-led one, establishing a foundation
for doing research data management work at the institutional level that is EDI- and personcentered. This article contributes a narrative to the RDM literature that reflects my experiences as
a racialized academic librarian creating an institutional RDM strategy while navigating a
predominantly white institution.

CANADIAN CONTEXT: Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy
In Canada, three federal agencies provide funding to “support research, research training and
innovation in Canadian postsecondary institutions”: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
(CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) (Canada, 2023a, para. 1).
Referred to together as the Tri-Agency, CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC released the Tri-Agency
Statement of Principles on Digital Data Management in 2016, followed by the more detailed TriAgency Research Data Management Policy in 2021.
Intended to support Canadian research excellence, the policy has three main pillars
(Canada, 2021a). The first pillar requires funding-eligible institutions to create and publicly share
an institutional research data management strategy by March 1, 2023 (Canada, 2021a). The use of
‘institutional strategy’ in this first pillar suggests that institutions should approach it as an action
plan rather than a governance policy: “An institutional RDM strategy describes how the institution
will provide its researchers with an environment that enables and supports RDM practices”
(Canada, 2023b, 4.a.). The other two pillars of this policy are more focused on the researcher and

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

99

are not yet fully implemented (Canada, 2023b). They include the requirement for researchers to
submit data management plans with their funding applications and the requirement for researchers
to share their data in open repositories, as appropriate (Canada, 2021a). In order to maintain
eligibility for Tri-Agency funding, institutions and researchers must fulfill these requirements as
they are incrementally implemented (Canada, 2021a). While larger Canadian research institutions
and other institutions actively engaged in research activities had established robust RDM supports
before the policy’s release (Cheung et al., 2022), the Tri-Agency policy provided an impetus, as
well as resources and guidance, for the development of institutional research data management
strategies at small- and medium-sized Canadian institutions that are in the process of transitioning
to support research activities. As noted in the literature, research funders’ mandates were an
effective stimulus for the development of research data management strategies and services in
other countries (Cox et al., 2016; Howie and Kara, 2022; Koltay, 2016). At small and mediumsized Canadian institutions that are only starting to establish research support services, the TriAgency policy encouraged the development of institutional RDM strategies and services along the
timeframe set by the policy.

MY APPROACH
“think of strategy not as the absence or bracketing of thought…but as the unfolding of thought”
(Ahmed, 2012, p.5)
Given the task of creating my institution’s strategy, I felt strongly that equity, diversity,
and inclusion principles should form an essential part of both the final strategy and, more
importantly, the strategy creation process. My positionality plays a role in this perspective. I am a
cis-gender, racialized librarian working at a predominantly white institution. I identify as Chinese
Canadian with roots in Hong Kong. In my professional career I have only worked in predominantly
white institutions with white administrators, and at times, have been the sole librarian of colour.
My reflections are inspired by Sara Ahmed’s (2012) approach in her work On being included:
Racism and diversity in institutional life, in which reflections of her experiences prompt her to
consider her relationship to institutional life and policy. As much as this article is about creating a
research data management strategy, it is also about navigating institutional life as a racialized
person.
Through her interviews with diversity practitioners, Ahmed (2012) noted the frequent
criticism that “too much research is premised on findings that institutions want found: from
toolboxes to good practice” (p.10) rather than reflecting the messiness of how this work is actually
done or reflecting the problematic power structures that hold up our institutions. The goal of this
article is not to provide a toolbox for accomplishing EDI in RDM; rather, I contribute my
experiences in how I incorporated EDI principles in RDM work. I use racial and gender equity as
an entry point to problematize RDM discourse; however, this is not to minimize the other ways
people experience marginalization in academic institutions. Writing from my perspective as a
racialized librarian, this article contributes to filling a gap identified in the library and information
studies (LIS) literature by Bright (2018). Bright (2018) notes the lack of attention on women of
colour or people with intersectional identities in LIS research. In particular, there is no research on
women of colour or people with intersectional identities who hold specific job roles; the little
research available is primarily focused on collection development and book reviews, LIS as a

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

100

whole, and LIS leadership (Bright, 2018). Bright (2018) posits that this lack of research leads to
further marginalization of these LIS workers. In this article, I offer reflections on how the concepts
of diversity, equity, and inclusion can and should shape the creation of institutional research data
management strategies, which includes making visible my experiences of invisible labour as a
racialized librarian. This work is important to me as it is informed by my belief that EDI work
should not be confined to isolated units within an institution, that justice should be an important
factor in all institutional work. Importantly, this work needs to be situated in my institutional
context: where I am, where I stand in my institution’s structure and spaces.
I work at a mid-sized public post-secondary institution in British Columbia, Canada. While
it began as a college in the 1960s, the institution was designated a special purpose, teaching
university in 2008 by the provincial government (University Act, 2008). Distinct from researchfocused universities, a special purpose, teaching university is a post-secondary institution
mandated to serve a specific geographical area and provide educational programs (University Act,
2008). There is no external mandate for the university to support research. Faculty at my institution
are hired to teach, not to do research; however, faculty and staff have and continue to pursue
research regardless of mandate and lack of pay. The university has only started to provide
institutional support for research through the creation of a research office and a research ethics
board in the past decade. This institutional context is important as the university’s identity is still
strongly grounded in its roots as a college and in its positioning of research as ancillary to teaching,
with research as “integral to building and maintaining our culture of learning and innovation”
(Capilano University, n.d., para. 1).
While other larger, research-focused Canadian institutions had done years of work
establishing RDM strategies and services ahead of the Tri-Agency policy (Cheung et al., 2022),
my mid-sized, teaching-focused institution did not have the capacity to address research data
management before it was required by funder mandate. This is not uncommon: Perrier et al. (2018)
noted in a meta-ethnographic analysis of academic libraries that “[r]eactionary responses were the
norm, as sufficient time was not provided to be proactive” (p.177-8). Patterton et al. (2018) focused
on resource-constrained institutions’ implementation of RDM services and “found that it was not
so much the researcher behaviour, but rather the approach to implementing RDM that needed to
be adapted to make provision for a different set of circumstances and priorities” (p.15). Pinfield et
al. (2014) note that whether an institution is research-led and teaching-led plays a role in how
research data management services are offered, and others acknowledge that the size and nature
of the institution determines the scope of these services (Cox et al., 2017; Donner, 2023; Patterton
et al., 2018). In addition to its teaching focus, another key part of my institution’s character is the
collegial management model, which supports decision-making at the functional level (Agreement,
2019). Unlike institutions with a vertical organizational structure, this flatter organizational
structure creates a much different relationship between faculty and administrators. In specified
functional areas, faculty groups make recommendations rather than having direction handed down
from administration (Agreement, 2019). To create the strategy, I received release time from some
of my librarian work with funding from the research office and worked with the Associate Vice
President, Creative Activity, Research and Scholarship and Graduate Studies; however, this
collegial structure provided me with flexibility in how I approached the task of creating the strategy
and offered me the freedom to explore how I could make EDI central to strategy development.

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

101

As I began the work of creating my institution’s research data management strategy, I looked to
Tri-Agency documents and the academic literature for guidance on how EDI principles can be
enacted in RDM work.

EDI AND THE TRI-AGENCY
In 2021, the year that the federal research agencies released the Tri-Agency Research Data
Management Policy, the agencies also published the Tri-Agency EDI Action Plan for 2018–2025.
Problematically, the action plan does not provide individual definitions of equity, diversity and
inclusion, noting that “the phrasing of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) [is used] as the
overarching objectives informing the initiatives” (Canada, 2021b, endnote 2), and outlines some
examples of underrepresented groups. The action plan directs the agencies to “address systemic
barriers that limit the full participation of all talented individuals” and that they “must create a
culture where embedding equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) considerations into all aspects of
research is second nature” (Canada, 2021b, para. 1). The use of ‘second nature’ to describe how
these principles should be incorporated implies complacent inattention: when something is so
ingrained it is done without attention or focus. It renders intentional actions and systemic processes
invisible, and in doing so, upholds the status quo. In this environment, it would be impossible to
name, much less address, systemic barriers.
Contrary to this ‘second nature’ approach, the Tri-Agency EDI Action Plan has been
adopted by some agencies with language describing specificity and intentionality: for example, by
NSERC in its grant evaluations which requires applicants to “describe specific, concrete practices
that you will put into place to ensure that EDI is intentionally and proactively supporting in your
project training plan” (NSERC, 2022, para. 2). Further, this procedure points to NSERC’s (2017)
Guide for applicants: Considering equity, diversity and inclusion in your application, which
provides separate and distinct definitions for each term. While there is criticism that the terms
equity, diversity, and inclusion are overused and used to obscure problems (Ahmed, 2012), it is
still meaningful that they are used at all. It signifies that they can be perceived; or perhaps, the use
of these terms “can be understood as a form of practical knowledge of the difficulty in getting
through” systemic barriers (Ahmed, 2012, p. 175).
However, in the Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy, the words equity and
inclusion are not used at all, and the only mention of diversity is in relation to methodologies and
research: “The agencies acknowledge the diversity of models of scientific and scholarly inquiry
that advance knowledge within and across the disciplines represented by agency mandates”
(Canada, 2021a, para. 4). With the omission of equity and inclusion and a definition of diversity
limited to research models, the Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy signals that EDI as
a whole is not relevant to RDM. The Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy only goes so
far as to advise a “distinctions-based approach” for research with or by First Nations, Métis, or
Inuit communities and organizations (Canada, 2021a, para. 5). While it is important that the
distinct data rights and sovereignty of these groups be recognized and respected as an aspect of
Indigenous self-determination, the Tri-Agency falls short of fulfilling its EDI Action Plan goal in
Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy with the exclusion of other marginalized groups.
It does not encourage institutions or researchers to consider how people from marginalized
communities or with intersectional identities may face systemic barriers in managing their research

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

102

data. Equity, diversity, and inclusion is not a box that can be checked off with the inclusion of
some communities and the exclusion of others. In the Tri-Agency Research Data Management
Policy, the absence of the words equity and inclusion, and use of diversity only in the context of
research practices, signifies to researchers and institutions that EDI principles have a specific and
limited application in RDM.

THE LITERATURE ON RDM INSTITUTIONAL STRATEGIES:
WHO AND HOW
Finding this limitation in the Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy, I turned my attention
to the academic literature on RDM. I conducted searches on the Library, Information Science &
Technology Abstracts (LISTA) database to discover what ways the existing academic literature
approached RDM and EDI, and in particular how RDM institutional strategies were created and
enacted with these principles in mind. Searches for the keywords research data management,
RDM, equity, diversity, inclusion, EDI, justice, and labour/labor retrieved results on institutional
RDM strategies and services, but no articles focused primarily on RDM strategy development and
the principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion. However, there was one article on RDM service
development featured an application of EDI principles, even though it did not use the terms equity,
diversity and inclusion: in Cheung et al.’s (2022) survey gauging researchers’ RDM readiness at
Canadian universities, they noted that their survey results “results may reflect differences in access
to institutional infrastructure, with fewer graduate students having access to shared drives and/or
university or departmental servers” (p. 12) and advised institutions to ensure that graduate students
have access to institutional infrastructure. To parse Cheung et al.’s (2022) finding with an EDI
lens, they identified that graduate students have different circumstances than faculty researchers
(diversity), and recommended institutions to enable this access to institutional
infrastructure (equity), which builds towards a culture of inclusion in institutional RDM support.
The other, direct mentions of diversity in the LISTA literature on RDM were descriptions of
disciplinary ‘diversity’ in how research data is managed (Castle, 2019; Pinfield et al., 2014; Tayler
& Jaffrey, 2021). Like the use of ‘diversity’ in the Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy,
this understanding of diversity does not seem to apply beyond research practices and data to the
researchers’ identities, those of their research communities and partners, nor the people supporting
research data management at an institution. Although the scope of this article is institutional RDM
strategy creation and EDI, it is important to acknowledge that there is a vibrant and growing body
of literature on Indigenous research data management services at universities (Howie & Kara,
2022), situated in decolonizing methodologies (Smith, 2021), as well as international and national
principles created by and with Indigenous peoples, such as the CARE Principles for Indigenous
Data Governance (Global Indigenous Data Alliance, 2019) and the First Nations Principles of
OCAPⓇ (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 1998) that can inform institutional RDM
practices. Aside from the literature on Indigenous research data management and Cheung et al.’s
(2022) consideration of equitable access, the LISTA search largely did not uncover academic
research that explores equity, diversity, and inclusion for other groups, nor how these principles
are applied in the creation of institutional RDM strategies.
Examining the RDM literature retrieved in LISTA, two relevant groupings emerged that
illuminate the RDM strategy development landscape: articles focused on the stakeholders or

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

103

participants in RDM strategy development, or the who (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022; Cox et al.,
2016; Cox et al., 2017; Faniel & Connaway, 2018; Howie & Kara, 2022; Patterton et al., 2018;
Perrier et al., 2018; Pinfield et al., 2014; Verbaan & Cox, 2014), and those on the processes or
steps involved in creating and enacting strategies, the how (Castle, 2019; Cox et al., 2016; Cox et
al, 2017; Donner, 2023).
This first grouping of articles examine the who of RDM, delving into which institutional
units are involved in RDM strategy and service development (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022; Cox et
al., 2016; Cox et al., 2017; Faniel & Connaway, 2018; Howie & Kara, 2022; Patterton et al., 2018;
Perrier et al., 2018; Pinfield et al., 2014; Verbaan & Cox, 2014). Since RDM does not sit within
an established portfolio, many institutional units can stake a claim on this space (Perrier et al.,
2018). Collaborations between units within the institution are essential to the development of RDM
services (Cox et al., 2017). The library, IT services, researchers and research support office were
frequently listed as collaborators (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022; Cox et al., 2017; Verbaan & Cox,
2014), but Pinfield et al. (2014) also identified records management and legal counsel as potential
partners and Patterton et al. (2018) included research ethics committees. These occupational
subcultures all hold different views on how to respond to RDM needs, which can lead to conflict
(Verbaan & Cox, 2014). Howie and Kara (2022) identified that the library’s involvement in RDM
has been primarily in the “advisory space” rather than “technical and infrastructure space” (p. 11).
Cox et al. (2017) noted that while IT services is most frequently mentioned as the library’s partner,
“issues of prioritization and coordination” in the IT-library relationship impede “[t]he development
of coordinated, cohesive and integrated services” (p. 2188). In addition to these differing
occupational views, the ambiguity around roles and leadership has been further identified as an
issue in developing RDM services (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022; Perrier et al., 2018); with
Andrikopoulou et al. (2022) expanding that this uncertainty can lead to competition rather than
collaboration between units. With all of these players in the RDM game, Cox et al. (2016) noted
that organizational levels and roles also play a part in how an individual perceives and responds to
RDM, contrasting the view of senior leadership with liaison librarians and library staff offering
front-line support, and suggest that this disconnect may be challenging for the implementation of
RDM services. Pinfield et al. (2014) also identified complex university governance structures and
power dynamics between managers as key challenges for implementing RDM programs. These
studies illustrate the institutional labyrinth that needs to be navigated in order to make space for
RDM at institutions.
The second grouping of articles focus more specifically on the how, the processes by which
institutional RDM strategies are created and enacted (Castle, 2019; Cox et al., 2016; Cox et al.,
2017; Donner, 2023). The term top-down was frequently used to describe the strategy creation
processes (Castle, 2019; Cox et al., 2016; Cox et al, 2017; Donner, 2023). Top-down, as
characterized in this literature, is a policy-driven, administrator-led approach to creating research
data management services (Castle, 2019; Cox et al., 2016). Cox et al. (2016) conducted a series of
semi-structured interviews with UK librarians and revealed a common approach to creating
institutional strategy: an upper-level administrator responsible for research creates and chairs a
working group or task force with members from research support and IT services, and this working
group reports to an institutional research committee. This highly structured, bureaucratic approach
was noted by the interviewees as unsuccessful in gaining significant engagement with the
academic community (Cox et al., 2016). In order to gain more researcher engagement, Castle

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

104

(2019) proposed augmenting a top-down, centralized approach with bottom-up strategies such as
holding direct meetings with researchers, interviewing and surveying researchers, and hosting
open informational meetings with funders for researchers. In these studies, regardless of whether
an institution takes a top-down or bottom-up approach to strategy creation, the library or librarian
plays a key role in this process.

THE LIBRARY AS A ‘NEUTRAL BODY’ FOR RDM
In both the who and the how RDM literature, the library’s role and participation in the development
and implementation of RDM services is undisputed (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022; Castle, 2019;
Cheung et al., 2022; Cox et al., 2016; Cox et al., 2017; Donner, 2023; Faniel & Connaway, 2018;
Howie & Kara, 2022; Patterton et al., 2018; Perrier, 2018; Pinfield et al., 2014; Tayler & Jaffrey,
2021; Verbaan & Cox, 2014), even though it may involve staking a new jurisdiction (Verbaan and
Cox, 2014) or have a negative impact on the library’s identity (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022). Perrier
et al. (2018), exploring the role of academic libraries in supporting RDM, note that researchers,
librarians and library staff saw the library “in a positive light and … [as] a neutral body that could
provide central services” (p. 178). In Perrier et al.’s (2018) finding, I discerned an application of
critical librarianship research (Chiu et al., 2021; Ettarh, 2018; Honma & Chu, 2018; Jordan, 2023;
Roh, 2018) to research data management, specifically in providing a theoretical frame for
interrogating this neutrality as justification for the library’s role in RDM support and the shaping
of institutional RDM work.
The use of neutrality as a library virtue is not new (Chiu et al., 2021), and offers one
possible avenue for exploring why EDI is not addressed in the literature on institutional RDM
strategies and services. One key theoretical lens for viewing library neutrality is vocational awe
(Ettarh, 2018). Vocational awe “refers to the set of ideas, values, and assumptions librarians have
about themselves and the profession that result in beliefs that libraries as institutions are inherently
good and sacred, and therefore beyond critique” (Ettarh, 2018, para. 3). Thinking back to Cheung
et al.’s (2022) consideration for equitable RDM infrastructure access for graduate students,
libraries and librarians clearly can identify inequities when it comes to our users, yet under the
blindfold of vocational awe, we do not see ourselves nor our libraries with the same critical eye.
Vocational awe espouses the myth of library neutrality (Chiu et al., 2021). If a space is neutral, it
is beyond critique – it carries no values that can be interrogated or dismantled. In the RDM
literature, vocational awe is expressed in two ways: in its depiction of the library as institution and
in the interactions between the librarian and the larger institution.
To expand on the first instance, the library institution is sometimes described as the active
body in the RDM literature: in this framing, “the library” and “the researchers” are posed as
participants (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022; Castle, 2019; Donner, 2023). Studies noted that it is
important that “the library” be recognized and accepted as a leader and partner in RDM which can
be achieved by “the library” proactively promoting these services (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022;
Donner, 2023). While “the researchers” are presented as a group of individuals sharing an
occupational role, the institution of “the library” subsumes the individual roles of different
workers. This characterization accomplishes two things: first, it removes the possibility of critique
because of the belief that libraries are inherently good and neutral (Ettarh, 2018); second, it erases

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

105

the labour of library workers. The library is imbued with agency and labour; it is not the RDM
librarian or library staff that is promoting and offering the services, but the library itself.
Vocational awe also plays out on an interpersonal level for librarians: in the instances
where librarians are named as actors in the process of creating institutional strategies, librarians
are described to navigate institutional structures and power dynamics and instigate cultural shifts
(Andrikopoulou at al., 2022; Cox et al., 2016; Cox et al., 2012; Pinfield et al., 2014; Verbaan &
Cox, 2014). Due to this need, the RDM librarian should not only possess technical skills but also
“advocacy and liaison skills, training skills” (Pinfield et al., 2014, p.20), “effectiveness in the
workplace” (Andrikopoulou at al., 2022, p. 358), “people and collaboration skills” (Cox et al.,
2016, p. 13) and “strategic understanding and influencing skills” (Cox et al., 2012, Table 1).
Succinctly put by Cox et al. (2016), “...it is not simply about applying skills to a problem but also
persuading user groups that they are relevant” (p.11). Cox et al.’s (2016) interviews with
academic librarians in the UK revealed an emphasis on niceness in developing and maintaining
intra-institutional relationships: “Although the funder mandates opened up the possibility of
stressing the stick over the carrot, interviewees seemed inclined to avoid punitive approaches,
recognising the complexity of the challenge and the need to maintain goodwill” (p. 14). In the
literature’s characterization of RDM work (Andrikopoulou at al., 2022; Cox et al., 2012; Cox et
al., 2016; Pinfield et al., 2014; Verbaan & Cox, 2014), the RDM librarian not only needs to possess
technical and political skills, but also must be perceived as nice – all in service of RDM education.
This ‘play nice’ mentality further demonstrates how vocational awe is embodied in RDM work as
librarians navigate institutional structures and relationships, informed by the belief that
librarianship is a calling for the greater good (Ettarh, 2018). Ettarh (2018) expands on how
vocational awe leads to librarian overwork and burnout in its positioning of librarians as allsacrificing. Faniel and Connaway’s (2018) interviews of academic librarians in the US revealed
that “difficulty meeting existing job responsibilities along with new RDM demands was mentioned
most frequently” (p. 107). It sets up a challenging if not impossible expectation for the librarian to
be all capable, and this can lead to librarian burnout and overwork.
In naming the phenomenon of vocational awe, Ettarh (2018) allows library and information
professionals to expose the problematic underpinnings of our institutional and interpersonal
interactions. It is important to name and reveal these dynamics since “[t]he very tendency to ‘look
over’ how everyday and institutional worlds involve restrictions and blockages is how those
restrictions and blockages are reproduced” (Ahmed, 2012, p. 181). In the RDM literature, these
restrictions and blockages are framed in terms of organizational level and occupational group
(Andrikopoulou et al., 2022; Cox et al., 2016; Cox et al., 2017; Pinfield et al., 2014; Verbaan &
Cox, 2014), concealing other structural power dynamics with the rhetoric of neutrality. The
presence of vocational awe and neutrality in our institutions is not isolated or rare, but pervasive
and deeply ingrained; or as Chiu et al. (2021) aptly describe, “not the shark, but the water.” (p.
49). This is not to say that we should passively accept vocational awe as status quo, but rather that
we should be scrutinizing the institutional waters we are in and intentionally using equity,
diversity, inclusion, and justice to navigate our course.

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

106

SEEING INVISIBLE LABOUR IN RDM
For racialized librarians, exacerbating overwork is the invisible labour of navigating
predominantly white institutions. Although I did not find it reflected in the existing RDM
literature, I found my concerns echoed in Jordan’s (2023) writing about her experiences as a
minority open educational resources (OER) creator. Jordan (2023) describes the context that she
and other racialized individuals work within: “navigating microaggressions, explaining why we
are in a room, dedicating time to advocate for ourselves, and even redirecting and rewriting our
own impostor-syndrome-related thoughts, which mirror society’s perception of our ability (para.
13). While RDM was seen as a natural extension of my scholarly communication portfolio by my
institution, like Jordan, I struggled with whether I was the right person to be doing this work, or
whether I was simply there to bring a bit of colour into the room; or expressed more concisely by
Hswe, as quoted in Roh (2018), “Which is it: competence or color?” (p. 435). Jordan (2023) finds
that these “well-meaning efforts” for diversity and inclusion “can place faculty of color at risk for
burnout and exploitation” with “a staggering invisible workload” (para. 18). Although Jordan
writes about OER creation, the same well-meaning efforts could well apply to research data
management. Recognition of diversity does not lead to equity when the performance of equity,
diversity and inclusion is prized over the actual enactment of these principles, and it places what
Roh (2018) describes as a “[b]urden to perform not just to prove ourselves, but on behalf of others”
(p.436). The work of making research data management strategies and services diverse, equitable
and inclusive should not be unduly placed on librarians and faculty from marginalized groups.
The RDM literature on intra-institutional collaborations does not address the cost of these
collaborations for people with intersectional identities. It presumes institutions, libraries and
librarians are homogenous because it does not address positionality. Chiu et al. (2021) explain how
this presumed whiteness/neutrality is perpetuated: “By virtue of their privileged position, librarians
of the status quo can afford to remain neutral toward issues that don’t affect them personally. The
legacy of a homogenous profession has given power to this position. Oppression is seemingly
overlooked for its lack of impact, whether direct or indirect, not only by the individuals who make
up the profession, but also by the profession itself.” (p. 56). As with the absence of equity,
diversity, and inclusion from the Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy, the lack of
attention on equity, diversity, and inclusion in the research literature presumes that these principles
are not important or applicable to the people doing the RDM work at institutions, and therefore,
there is no cost to collaborations because these systemic barriers simply do not exist in a
homogenous white world.

A PROPOSAL:
CONTRIBUTIVE RATHER THAN COLLABORATIVE
Collaboration can be fraught when navigating power structures in a predominantly white
institution. In my experience as a racialized person, collaboration in a predominantly white
institution can mean white administrators taking my ideas and presenting them as collaboratively
generated, or worse, misunderstanding or misrepresenting my words to cause harm to other
marginalized individuals. Tokenism can be at play, where the “very fact of your existence can
allow others not to turn up” (Ahmed, 2012, p. 5). Models that tout collaboration as an unquestioned

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

107

good should be interrogated: who is participating and whose voices are being heard? What has
each person contributed?
Honma and Chu (2018) suggest that the contributive justice model proposed by Paul
Gomberg (2016) provides a way forward for equitable participation in libraries: “Contributive
justice is the process whereby each of us has the opportunity to contribute. By everyone
contributing, then there will be the opportunity to ensure that all of our stories, all that we can
offer, will be accessible to others. With all contributing, there is greater possibility of accessibility
of a broader range of information” (Honma & Chu, 2018, p. 460). This contributive justice model
offered me a way to enact principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion in the creation of an
institutional research data management strategy. Contributive justice prizes diversity by including
a range of voices and stories. It creates equity in providing flexibility in how people can contribute,
and ultimately supports creating a culture of inclusion where peoples’ individual contributions are
valued.
In the spirit of contributive justice, and aware of the reality that RDM work is messy and
often unaligned with best practices, I determined that it would be best to first understand how
researchers at my institution manage their research data rather than start with drafting a strategy
based on best practice and the research literature and only then soliciting research feedback. RDM
librarians frequently use surveys to gather data on researchers’ data practices and concerns (Castle,
2019; Cheung et al., 2022; Cox et al., 2016; Patterton et al., 2018); however, surveys have been
noted in the literature to have limited response from researchers (Cox et al., 2016). Rather than
creating a survey, I began with talking to researchers and listening to their diverse stories,
experiences, worries, and feelings. I was aware that these researcher conversations would take
time, but this approach heeded Okun’s (2023) warning that a sense of urgency to complete the
strategy is characteristic of White Supremacy culture, and that when a sense of urgency arises, one
should build time for equity. With support from the research office and liaison librarians in
identifying researchers, I contacted staff and faculty researchers at my institution for short chats
about their research data practices. Some researchers chose to respond via email, but the majority
(fifty researchers) agreed to a virtual or in-person meeting. Due to the deadline provided by the
Tri-Agency policy, faculty availability during the academic year, and my own workload, most of
these meetings took place in the last three weeks of a busy fall semester. Ahead of time, I prepared
some questions focused on researchers’ RDM practices and current and anticipated needs;
however, these were only to be used to prompt conversation and not to fully direct the chat. This
semi-structured interview approach allowed me to approach these conversations with RDM in
mind; but not restrict our conversations to a specific set of questions or topics. During these chats,
these researchers generously and openly spoke about their experiences and needs for research data
management support, framed in their specific stories and positionalities. Many of their concerns
aligned with researcher themes identified in the research literature, but in having more unstructured
conversations rather than sticking to a prescribed script or set of survey questions, we uncovered
concerns around EDI, workload, justice, and institutional politics that were not included in my list
of initial prompts and questions. When it came time to circulate the policy draft, I received
comments from researchers outside of the initial group of fifty researchers I spoke with, unlike the
low researcher engagement resulting from the top-down approaches as described in the literature
(Cox et al., 2016). I felt this spoke to the importance of building space at the start of the strategy

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

108

creation process to get to know the researchers and resisting the sense of urgency to draft the
strategy.
In addition to researchers, I also sought feedback on the working draft from administrators
at the vice president, associate vice president and dean levels and employees in IT services, library,
research ethics board, teaching and learning centre, and Indigenous faculty group, a list of
contributors reflective of those described in the literature (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022; Cox et al.,
2016; Cox et al., 2017; Faniel & Connaway, 2018; Howie & Kara, 2022; Patterton et al., 2018;
Perrier et al., 2018; Pinfield et al., 2014; Verbaan & Cox, 2014). The RDM literature poses role
ambiguity as a challenge for intra-institutional cooperation (Andrikopoulou et al., 2022; Perrier et
al., 2018; Pinfield et al., 2014) but under “contributive justice, where everyone has the ethic of
contributing, we all have a role to play, and everyone takes ownership in doing their part. Those
who can contribute more will do so, while those may contribute less, but all contribute to the shared
labor.” (Honma & Chu, 2018, p. 460). All of these people provided contributions to the strategy
that were informed not only by their occupational and organizational roles, but also their
positionality and experiences at this institution and others. For example, the labour concerns raised
by researchers led me to request the involvement of the faculty association, which had not been
identified in the literature as a contributor to institutional RDM strategies. The faculty association
provided a larger scale view of faculty and their expertise was invaluable in ensuring that union
rights and the principle of academic freedom were explicitly stated in the strategy. Through the
lens of contributive justice, I was not evaluating the quantity or quality of people’s contributions,
but simply “respected [them] for contributions that are real and important” (Gomberg, 2016, p.
50). The recognition of contribution as a reciprocal benefit (Gomberg, 2016) is essential in the
context of my teaching-focused, rather than research-focused, institution. Since these researchers
are doing this additional work on the side of their recognized, paid roles, it is important that people
are invited to contribute: while not every individual will care about RDM, an invitation to
participate acknowledges the legitimacy of each researcher’s work and recognizes that each
researcher has the right to contribute to the strategy. It is an equity-creating step that
also acknowledges the work done by people to perform or support these research activities,
especially those who are not employed in faculty roles or those in “non-instructional” faculty roles
such as librarians and counsellors. I felt that this open, iterative methodology reduced tunnel
vision by highlighting issues that at times seemed to be out of scope or peripheral but together
formed a big picture of intertwining systems and structures that inform how people work together
at my institution and how they might manage their research data.
The contributive model strengthens relationships in that individuals’ voices and
experiences are acknowledged and valued. Centering people and equity, diversity, and inclusion
enriches an institution’s research data management strategy because it prioritizes the process over
the product. The Tri-Agency policy requires institutions to outline how institutions will support
researchers, rather than what they will do (Canada, 2023b), which makes space for strategy
creators to focus on the process. Although these reflections have primarily focused on the labour
of interpersonal and intra-institutional relationships, the written strategy reflected the spirit of the
process The strategy is informed by diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice, and reflects the
individuals who engage in research at my institution. It establishes a foundation for doing research
data management work at the institutional level that is EDI- and person-centered.

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

109

THE FUTURE
“How documents are written affects how they might be taken up. If the document becomes the
sole responsibility of an individual within an organization, then that organization can authorize the
document, give it a signature, and refuse responsibility for it at the same time” (Ahmed, 2012,
p.91).
Writing and publishing the strategy is just the start of the work. It complies with the
requirement set by the federal policy, but does not ensure my institution’s commitment to taking
substantive action to create RDM services rooted in equity and justice. A single document does
not instantly dismantle systemic barriers nor does it ensure non-performative accountability to the
principles outlined.
However, using a contributive model to create a strategy does give voice to researchers and
also amplifies the voices of librarians and other professionals in the research process whose labour
and key contributions to research are often sidelined. It values the diversity of the people involved
and makes a mindful effort to enable their participation and recognize their contributions.
Throughout the process and in the strategy document, faculty and staff researchers’ needs,
concerns and successes inform the institutional priorities, and their voices make the strategy
human. The recognition of strategy creation as a people-centred practice contributes to a culture
of inclusion where people feel valued and respected. This strategy creation process reflects
Ahmed’s (2012) suggestion to “think of strategy not as the absence or bracketing of thought…but
as the unfolding of thought” (p.5). Alongside the researchers’ stories, the concerns of vocational
awe (Ettarh, 2018) and invisible labour (Jordan, 2023), as highlighted in critical librarianship
research (Chiu et al., 2021; Ettarh, 2018; Honma & Chu, 2018; Jordan, 2023; Roh, 2018),
contributed to the strategy’s unfolding. The resulting strategy is a dynamic and imperfect
document, not a static best practice that can be uniformly applied across institutions. By treating
equity, diversity, inclusion and justice as central to our work, LIS professionals can challenge and
shape our practices and the ways we talk about RDM, and consider alternative ways for us to do
institutional RDM work are centered on people and their contributions. Because, ultimately, when
we tell the stories of research data management, we are telling the stories of people, not data nor
organizational units.
References
Agreement between Capilano University and Capilano University Faculty Association April 1,
2019 to March 31, 2022. (2019). https://www.capilanofaculty.com/resources
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke
University Press.
Andrikopoulou, A., Rowley, J., & Walton, G. (2022). Research data management (RDM) and the
evolving identity of academic libraries and librarians: A literature review. New Review of
Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 349-365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2021.
1964549

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

110

Bright, K. (2018). A woman of color’s work is never done: Intersectionality, emotional, and
invisible labor in reference and information work. In R.L. Chou & A. Pho (Eds.), Pushing
the margins: Women of color and intersectionality in LIS (pp. 163-195). Library Juice
Press.
Canada. (2021a). Tri-Agency research data management policy. https://science.gc.ca/
site/science/en/interagency-research-funding/policies-and-guidelines/research-datamanagement/tri-agency-research-data-management-policy
Canada. (2021b). Tri-Agency EDI action plan for 2018-2025. https://www.nserccrsng.gc.ca/InterAgency-Interorganismes/EDI-EDI/Action-Plan_Plan-dAction_eng.asp
Canada (2023a). Interagency research funding. https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/interagencyresearch-funding
Canada (2023b). Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy - Frequently Asked Questions.
https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/interagency-research-funding/policies-andguidelines/research-data-management/tri-agency-research-data-management-policyfrequently-asked-questions
Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion. (2023). Glossary of IDEA terms: A reference tool
for inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility terminology (Version 2.0).
https://ccdi.ca/media/4005/20230509-glossary-of-idea-terms-en.pdf
Capilano University. (n.d.). Research. Retrieved on November 16, 2023, from
https://www.capilanou.ca/about-capu/get-to-know-us/research/
Castle, C. (2019). Getting the central RDM message across: A case study of central versus
discipline-specific research data services (RDS) at the University of Cambridge. Libri:
International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 69(2), 105-116.
https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2018-0064
Cheung, M., Cooper, A., Dearborn, D., Hill, E., Johnson, E., Mitchell, M., & Thompson, K.
(2022). Practices before policy: Research data management behaviours in Canada.
Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library & Information Practice & Research,
17(1), 1-80. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v17i1.6779
Chiu, A., Ettarh, F.M., & Ferretti, J.A. (2021). Not the shark, but the water: How neutrality and
vocational awe intertwine to uphold White Supremacy. In S.Y. Leung & J.R. LópezMcKnight (Eds.), Knowledge justice: Disrupting library and information studies through
critical race theory (pp. 49-71). MIT Press.
Cox, A., Verbaan, E. & Sen, B. (2012). Upskilling liaison librarians for research data
management. Ariadne, 70. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue/70/cox-et-al/
Cox, A. M., Pinfield, S., & Smith, J. (2016). Moving a brick building: UK libraries coping with

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

111

research data management as a ‘wicked’ problem. Journal of Librarianship and
Information Science, 48(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000614533717
Cox, A. M., Kennan, M. A., Lyon, L., & Pinfield, S. (2017). Developments in research data
management in academic libraries: Towards an understanding of research data service
maturity. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9),
2182-2200. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23781.
Donner, E. K. (2023). Research data management systems and the organization of universities
and research institutes: A systematic literature review. Journal of Librarianship &
Information Science, 55(2), 261-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211070282
Ettarh, F. (2018). Vocational awe and librarianship: The lies we tell ourselves. In the Library
with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/
Faniel, I.M. & Connaway, L.S. (2018). Librarians’ perspectives on the factors influencing
research data management programs. College & Research Libraries, 79(1), 100-119.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.100
First Nations Information Governance Centre. (1998). The First Nations principles of OCAPⓇ.
Retrieved November 23, 2023, from https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training/
Global Indigenous Data Alliance - Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data
Sovereignty Interest Group. (2019). CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.
Retrieved November 27, 2023, from http://www.gida-global.org/care
Gomberg, P. (2016). Why distributive justice is impossible but contributive justice would work.
Science & Society, 80(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2016.80.1.31
Honma, T. & Chu, C.M. (2018). Positionality, epistemology, and new paradigms for LIS: A
critical dialogue with Clara M. Chu. In R.L. Chou & A. Pho (Eds.), Pushing the
margins: Women of color and intersectionality in LIS (pp. 447-465). Library Juice Press.
Howie, J., & Kara, H. (2022). Research support in New Zealand university libraries. New Review
of Academic Librarianship, 28(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2019.1700535
Jordan, J. (2023). Compounded labor: Developing OER as a marginalized creator. In the Library
with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2023/compoundedlabor-developing-oer-as-a-marginalized-creator/
Koltay, T. (2016). Facing the challenge of data-intensive research: Research data services and
data literacy in academic libraries. In D. Baker & W. Evans (Eds.), Innovation in
libraries and information services (pp. 45-61). Emerald.
NSERC (2017). Guide for applicants: Considering equity, diversity and inclusion in your
application. https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/EDI/Guide_for_Applicants_EN.pdf

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

112

NSERC. (2022). Alliance grants: Equity, diversity and inclusion in your training plan. https://
www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Innovate-Innover/alliance-alliance/EDI_training-EDI_formation_
eng.asp
Okun, T. (2023, June). Sense of urgency. White Supremacy Culture.
https://www.whitesupremacyculture.info/urgency.html
Patterton, L., Bothma, T. J. D., & van Deventer, M. J. (2018). From planning to practice: An
action plan for the implementation of research data management services in resourceconstrained institutions. South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science, 84(2),
14-26. https://doi.org/10.7553/84-2-1761
Perrier, L., Blondal, E., & MacDonald, H. (2018). Exploring the experiences of academic
libraries with research data management: A meta-ethnographic analysis of qualitative
studies. Library & Information Science Research, 40(3/4), 173-183. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lisr.2018.08.002
Pinfield S., Cox, A.M., & Smith J. (2014). Research data management and libraries:
Relationships, activities, drivers and influences. PLoS ONE 9(12), e114734.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114734
Roh, C. (2018). Reflections on the intersection of publishing and librarianship: the experiences
of women of color. In R.L. Chou & A. Pho (Eds.), Pushing the margins: Women of color
and intersectionality in LIS (pp. 427-446). Library Juice Press.
Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (3rd ed.).
Zed Books.
Tayler, F., & Jafary, M. (2021). Shifting horizons: A literature review of research data
management train-the-trainer models for library and campus-wide research support staff
in Canadian institutions. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 16(1), 78-90.
https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29814
University Act designation of special purpose, teaching universities regulation (BC Reg
220/2008). (2008). Retrieved from the BC Laws website:
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/11_220_2008
Verbaan, E., & Cox, A. M. (2014). Occupational sub-cultures, jurisdictional struggle and third
space: Theorising professional service responses to research data management. Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 40(3-4), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.20
About the author
Sabrina Wong (she/her) is the Scholarly Communications and Copyright Librarian at Capilano
University, located on the territories of the LíỈwat, xʷməθkʷəỷəm, shíshálh, Skwxwú7mesh, and

Wong / International Journal of Librarianship 8(4)

SəỈílwətaʔ/Selilwitulh Nations, and holds a MLIS and a BA from the University of British
Columbia. She is from Hong Kong and Canada. She finds joy in her life with R., A., and H.

113