Requirements Analysis Report 2025 Research Data Management Training for NFDI

Requirements Analysis Report 2025 Research Data Management Training for NFDI Mareike Wohltmann1https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4329-7619, Rabea Müller1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3096-8237, Sina Bock2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6754-8810, Justine Vandendorpe1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9421-8582 Marco Uebachs2https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4052-0751, Birte Lindstädt1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8251-1597, Mirjam Blümm2 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3665-7031 and Konrad U. Förstner1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1481-2996 1 ZB MED – Information Centre for Life Sciences, Germany 2 Technical University of Cologne (TH Köln), University of Applied Sciences, Germany DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17737489 Date: 2025-11-27 Project: RDMTraining4NFDI Deliverable: Base4NFDI D1.4.1 Survey Requirements Analysis Funding: This contribution is based on work supported by the NFDI basic service (Research Data Management Training for NFDI), funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under project number 521453681. Introduction The basic service Research Data Management Training for NFDI (RDMTraining4NFDI) provides RDM multipliers with support for developing reusable FAIR-compliant training materials together with documented, tried-and-tested training formats and didactic methods. The aim is to enable consortia to efficiently develop their own community-specific adaptations of such training and to build RDM training capacity quickly. The requirement analysis was part of the RDMTraining4NFDI project, coordinated by ZB MED – Information Centre for Life Sciences and TH Köln – University of Applied Sciences. The requirements analysis began one month after the launch of RDMTraining4NFDI in March 2025 to assess the needs and requirements of the RDM community, particularly the target group of RDM multipliers, for the development of our service. It was conducted using three complementary methods (semi-structured interviews, a survey, and a focus group discussion), which supported the achievement of the Base4NFDI D1.4.1 deliverable1. Semi-structured Interviews The first step of the requirements analysis involved a qualitative approach: semi-structured interviews were conducted in April 2025 with representatives of the four cooperating partners NFDI4Memory, NFDI4Microbiota, KonsortSWD, Berd@NFDI. These interviews were aimed to identify specific gaps and infrastructural needs within the current RDM training landscape, including aspects such as trainer communities and support structures. The interviews were analysed using Braun & Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis method. The semi-structured interviews resulted in following key findings: Regarding the requirements for training content and formats, the interviews show that there is a strong demand for discipline-specific, modular, and adaptable training that can be tailored to different skill levels and target groups. Participants expressed a preference for a combination of generic introductions and specific thematic units, like legal topics. Self-paced learning formats are particularly valued for their flexibility, but participants also highlighted the benefits of interactive formats like workshops or flipped classrooms as for example a productive exchange with other participants or lecturers. Training materials should be easy to understand, available in English, and easily integratable into daily routines. Regarding training platforms, participants pointed out that existing platforms are fragmented and expressed the need for a central, accessible, and cross-disciplinary platform. Therefore, they also emphasized the importance of platform-independent sharing and reuse of training materials to ensure accessibility and adaptability. Furthermore, there is a desire for a NFDI-wide trainer and RDM network to connect or find experts of different subject areas, share resources, and provide coordinated support. Currently, there is a lack of unified, broadly applicable quality standards for training offers. As a result, users often rely on peer recommendations or established community practices when selecting materials. The implementation of certification processes is seen as dependent on the development of clearly defined quality criteria, which are currently missing and the complexity and diversity of scientific disciplines, along with their varied target groups, significantly influence the 1 (Wittenhorst, 2024) definition of these criteria. Certification is considered both a useful motivator and a tool for professional profile enhancement. Survey Based on the findings from the interviews, the second step of the requirements analysis, a quantitative survey, was conducted to better understand the requirements of the NFDI consortia and the wider research data management (RDM) community concerning RDM materials, training (formats) and certification. The primary objective was to assess the training needs related to RDM within the NFDI consortia to provide targeted support and inform the development of this foundational service. Leading questions for the survey were: ● What challenges are associated with creating and using OER (Open Educational Resources) materials? ● What are the expectations and needs of the consortia regarding the certification of RDM (Research Data Management) modules and the delivery of training? ● What potential exists for networking among RDM professionals? ● In which areas is support from RDMTraining4NFDI most needed? The survey specifically targeted NFDI consortia members to identify their RDM training requirements, enabling the creation of tailored support measures. The survey was accessible from June 13 to June 27, 2025, and required approximately 10 minutes to complete. The survey was completed by an expanded group of participants, with a total of 113 participants from 23 consortia. The original questions and the complete survey structure have been published2. The survey was conducted using 2ask3, provided by orbiz Software GmbH, Robert-Gerwig-Str. 4, 78467 Konstanz and analyzed via Python4. During the analysis, we focused on the answer for the leading questions. Data of the survey have been published5. Survey Results Of the 23 consortia that participated in the survey, 11 consortia had more than 4 participants each, including 2 consortia with the highest number of participants (8 each). The remaining 12 consortia had fewer than 4 participants each. In relative terms, Humanities and Social Sciences accounted for 26.1 % of all consortia, followed by Life Sciences (34.8 %), Natural Sciences (30.4 %), and Engineering Sciences (21.7 %). The roles of survey participants showed that most identified themselves as Data Stewards or RDM Trainers (Figure1). This indicates that the survey successfully reached its target group and provides a solid basis for using the survey results to inform service development. 5 https://zenodo.org/uploads/17242436 4 Analyzed using the analysis software Python. Software: https://www.python.org/ 3 Designed and conducted using the survey creation tool 2ask, orbiz Software GmbH. (n.d.). 2ask – Your Online Survey. Tool: https://www.2ask.com. 2 https://zenodo.org/uploads/17242436 Figure 1: Roles of Participants Training Information Participants showed an approximately equal proportion of experience, with less than or more than 3 years in providing training. The majority of participants are not certified (82.5%), with the main reason being lack of time (27.2 %). Preferences for training formats (on-site, hybrid, online, self-learning path), whether for train-the-trainer (TTT) or domain-specific training, did not show noticeable differences. However, for both formats, self-paced training was the least preferred compared to on-site, hybrid, or fully online events. On-site events were slightly preferred for train-the-trainer sessions and notably preferred for domain-specific training (see Figure 2). Regarding the reuse of training materials, participants primarily rely on their own previously created materials (24 %), search engines (e.g., Google) (13.2 %), training materials created within the consortium (11.8 %) and OER platforms (10.2%). However, 16.8 % of participants provided their own specifications, mentioning for example OERSI, TIB AV-Portal, Twillo, the FAIR Cookbook, ELIXIR Training Platform, DARIAH Campus, and other individual or institution-specific resources (see Figure 3 and Jupyter Notebook). For desired features in reusable materials, participants most frequently mentioned trainer support materials (e.g., trainer scripts, speaker notes) (14.9 %), open licenses (e.g., CC0, reuse without restrictions) (13.4 %), modular structures allowing topic selection (9.8 %), and clearly stated learning objectives (9.7 %) as essential requirements (see Figure 4). In addition, 27.3 % of participants provided their own specifications, most often referring to clearly stated required previous knowledge (6.6 %), regular updates (6.0 %), and didactics and practice (5.3 %) (see Jupyter Notebook), as well as a variety of other aspects such as open formats, competence frameworks and quality assurance. Figure 2: Preferred Formats for Train-the-Trainer and Domain-Specific Trainings Figure 3: Sources of Reused Training Materials Figure 4: Must-Have Feature for Reusable Training Materials Information on Service Needs Information on service needs is presented for participants who identified themselves primarily as data stewards or RDM trainers (65.4 % of the 113 participants in this survey). A high level of support (high support needed, very high support needed, or maximum support needed) was expressed for consultancy on how to design and structure RDM training effectively (52.9 %) as well as on how to deliver RDM training effectively (54.4 %). In terms of reuse of training materials, 42.6 % of participants expressed a high level of support needed in finding suitable RDM training materials, while 30.9 % expressed a high level of support needed in guidance on adapting existing materials to meet specific needs. When it comes to certification, 32.4 % of participants indicated a high level of support needed for the establishment of a certification process for RDM within the NFDI. The results show that participants who do not primarily identify themselves as data stewards or RDM trainers reported a higher need for support, representing 37.2 % of a high level of support needed. In addition, this question resulted in a high number of "not applicable" responses (15 %) and, at the same time, showed a high number of participants indicating maximum support needed (8 %). The RDM network aspect resulted in a high level of support needed, with 54.4 % of respondents looking for contacts who could deliver RDM training sessions on specific topics, and 30.9 % seeking people they could approach for feedback on their RDM training. Furthermore, 58.8 % reported needing a high level of support to monitor current RDM trends. 52.9 % of participants indicated a high level of support needed for the ongoing maintenance and updating of RDM training materials. Focus Group A focus group discussion was conducted as a third method to gain detailed insights into the target group with an emphasis on the reuse of training materials. The focus group meet in person on July 8 2025 during the final event of the fourth NRW certificate course 2024/20256 developed by the state initiative fdm.nrw7, TH Köln, and ZB MED with 15 participants included Data Stewards and other RDM professionals from different disciplines. The guiding questions were sent to the participants by email one day in advance, and the discussion lasted approximately 15 minutes. The questions sent to the participants were: ● For which target group(s) do you create RDM trainings/workshops? ● Which RDM topic areas do you cover in your trainings/workshops? ● What challenges do you encounter in offering these trainings/workshops? ● Have you ever created RDM training materials yourself? ● Have you ever reused RDM training materials created by others? ● If so, where do you typically find learning and teaching materials on RDM? The discussion focused on the needs of the target group for the reuse of training materials. Training materials should be scalable and adaptable to different formats, easily accessible and downloadable, and flexible enough to be embedded into existing teaching contexts, tailored to specific audiences (e.g., short coffee lectures), and aligned with individual branding. In addition, language support and a central pool providing an overview of materials, methods, and resources, supported by consistent terminology and keywording, would enhance the reuse of existing RDM training materials. Reusable training materials formats and concise modular units, designed to revisit fundamental RDM concepts at the outset of more specialized training sessions, are considered particularly beneficial. Furthermore, interactive and hands-on materials, illustrative examples of the consequences of poor practices, and practical templates for data and file structures are needed. “Bring your own data” workshops are regarded as an effective way to improve RDM skills. Lastly, the discussion resulted in the detection of a need for well-designed didactic concepts to support the delivery of documentation and instructional materials, including approaches to explaining complex data (e.g.; generic or n-ary trees), templates for organisational file structures and motivating participants, inspired by didactic training concepts such as the The Carpentries “Instructor Training”8. Conclusion In summary, the semi-structured interviews, survey and focus group discussion show that there is a clear need for materials that are easily accessible, modular, well-structured and openly licensed. These materials should be designed so that they can easily be integrated into existing teaching contexts and adapted for different target groups. A central, cross-consortia repository with standardised terminology would greatly facilitate reuse. Certification processes are considered potentially valuable as a motivator and for building a professional profile, but this depends on the development of unified quality standards for 8 The Carpentries, “Instructor Training” https://carpentries.org/instructor-training/ 7 https://www.fdm.nrw 6 for further information see: https://www.th-koeln.de/weiterbildung/zertifikatskurs-forschungsdatenmanagement_82048.php training offers, which are currently lacking. There is a particularly high demand for support with the didactic design and delivery of RDM training, the continuous updating of materials and monitoring of current trends. There is also a need for a service to facilitate the exchange of trainers between different consortia and disciplines. Overall, the requirement analysis indicates strong interest in a cross-consortia RDM training service, as evidenced by the high survey response rate. These findings highlight the need for structural and practical support in developing and delivering effective RDM training, and provide important guidance for shaping the RDMTraining4NFDI service. Outlook Based on these findings, RDMTraining4NFDI structured its service to address key needs identified by the requirement analysis. The focus is on improving the findability of training materials across consortia, providing guidance on training didactics and delivery, monitoring RDM trends, and offering time-efficient training formats for trainers. Additionally, the service seeks to explore options for an certification process within NFDI and to establish a platform that supports trainers in addressing topic-specific needs. A detailed description of service aims are provided in the proposal for the Integration phase.9 Acknowledgement The RDMTraining4NFDI team gratefully acknowledges the collaboration with the cooperating partners, participants in the survey and further stakeholder within NFDI and beyond. We thank Base4NFDI, especially Antje Manske, and the Service Stewards, Hannah Butz und Lisa Schwier, for their support in the requirements analysis. Author Contributions M.W. and S.B. conducted the semi-structured interviews, M.W., R.M., S.B., B.L., M.B. and K.U.F. created the survey questions with support of Base4NFDI, M.W. conducted the survey with support of Base4NFDI, R.M. and S.B. conducted the focus group discussion, M.W. performed the analysis of the semi-structured interview with support of Base4NFDI, M.W. and R.B. prepared and performed the analysis of the survey, R.B. designed the figures and tables, M.W. wrote the report. All authors commented on the report. Bibliography and List of Reference Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3. 77-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 9 (Wohltmann et al., 2025) Wittenhorst, T. (2024). Base4NFDI - Requirements for Completion of Initialisation Phase. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11519611 Wohltmann, M., Bock, S., Vandendorpe, J., Uebachs, M., Müller, R., Lindstaedt, B., Blümm, M., & Förstner, K. U. (2025). RDMTraining4NFDI Proposal Integration Phase: Research Data Management Training for the German National Research Data Infrastructure.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16927331