Research Infrastructures in Tampere3: a Survey

Transcription

1 Kristiina Tolvanen Research Infrastructures in Tampere3: a Survey A Shortened Version of the Final Report November 2017 Table of Contents Background... 1 Aims of the Survey... 2 The Survey in Practice... 3 Conclusions, Observations and Recommendations... 4 Acquisitions, Administration and Upkeep... 4 IT-administration, Software Requirements, Computational Infrastructure... 5 Data Management... 6 Premises... 6 Background A particularly broad-minded undertaking supported by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture is under its way in Tampere. The main goal of this enterprise is to join three higher-level educational institutions, University of Tampere (UTA), Tampere University of Technology (TUT) and Tampere University of Applied Sciences (TAMK), into one large Higher Education Institution that offers first-rate higher-level education and excels in research. The Tampere3 project is led by an organizational structure, which includes a Research Preparatory Group. In August 2017, the group published its Intermediate Report, where research infrastructures were listed among the topics that were more closely observed. According to the report, a necessary step for research infrastructures would be to conduct a survey, which would identify and describe them on a general level. This survey would then act as a basis for future acquisitions, administration and upkeep. In addition to Tampere3 context, influencing factors behind this survey include the Finnish Academy s goals for long-term development of research infrastructures, their availability, improving joint usage and evaluating their influence and importance. These goals are presented in the document Finland s strategy and roadmap for research infrastructures Moreover, this survey has relied on the Finnish Academy s definition, according to which Research infrastructures refer to a reserve of research facilities, equipment, information networks, databases, materials and services enabling research and development at various stages of innovation. Research infrastructures may be based at a single location (single-sited), scattered across numerous sites and organisations (distributed), or provided via a virtual platform (virtual). They can also form mutually complementary wholes and networks. Europe hosts several large-scale research infrastructures that are open to collaborative use across national boundaries. 1

2 The roadmap maintained by Finnish Academy specifies significant national research infrastructures and lists the companionships that Finland has in European infrastructure projects. From Tampere, the roadmap includes the Finnish Social Science Data Archive, FSD, which operates under University of Tampere. The Finnish Academy funds scientifically important, expensive research infrastructures, and universities prioritise their own applications for funding. Before this survey, research infrastructures have been discussed, for example, in the report concerning the Research Assessment Exercise completed at the University of Tampere in One of the assessment criteria was Quality of the research environment, and the panelists also commented on the infrastructure available for research in different Schools and fields. During this survey, it became apparent that the panelists recommendations have been followed, among others, in the acquisition of a mammalian facility in Kauppi and in the recruitment of a Data Management Expert in the field of Health Sciences. Some recommendations, however, such as technical support for psychology s Human Information Processing laboratory, are yet to be followed. Furthermore, the 2017 Research Centre Assessment conducted at the University of Tampere makes several references to research infrastructures. The report refers to infrastructures in the self-assessments as well as in discussions about future prospects. According to the assessment report, Tampere Centre for Child Health Research, among others, felt that a survey concerning research infrastructures would be invaluable. Furthermore, the report also states that Faculty of Communication Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, in particular, have significant infrastructures for research. The documents and reports listed above show that infrastructures play a central role in research. The role does not focus solely on what kind of research is taking place at the moment, but the infrastructures also define what research will be in the future. Scientific research often requires specific infrastructure. Up-todate, appropriate, high-quality infrastructure can enable top-level research, which is a major advantage in competition between universities. Aims of the Survey The aim of this survey is to offer a general view on research infrastructures at Tampere3-level. Thus, the purpose is not to produce a detailed list of equipment and facilities. However, the spring 2017 report on laboratories located on Main Campus at the University of Tampere, which extends itself to equipment-level, has been particularly useful while making this survey. The survey seeks answers to the following questions: What research infrastructures Tampere3 universities have? Where are they located, who is in charge of their administration and upkeep? Who is allowed to use them? What infrastructures outside of Tampere3 are being used for research purposes? How is data management organised in such many different fields, and how should it be organised? What are the current solutions for the need of computational infrastructure, and what should they be in the future? How can research infrastructures be described and information brought available on Tampere3- level? The aim of this survey is that research infrastructures become identified used efficiently on Tampere3-level acquired, administered and maintained methodically visible both to researchers as well as outsiders developed sustainably in order to ensure and increase the quality of research. 2

3 The Survey in Practice With a general agreement that the survey would not intend to be a scientific view, it was designed to follow the wishes and needs of the Tampere3 Research Preparatory Group chaired by Vice Rector Seppo Parkkila. Head of Research Development Markku Ihonen from University of Tampere acted as the main supervisor. Project Planner Kristiina Tolvanen from the same organisation completed the actual survey and reported the results. Funding came from the Tampere3 project. Information about research infrastructures was gathered from UTA, TUT and TAMK with the help of visits and interviews. Moreover, the survey took into consideration the most important interest groups in the area, which is why the Science Center of Pirkanmaa Hospital District was also consulted. The Laboratory Services on Kauppi campus (LAS) was considered both as part of Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, and as a separate entity, since it represents a new model of administering and maintaining research infrastructures in Tampere area. Interviews were organised with experts and professionals who were thought to have relevant information and views concerning research infrastructures. Furthermore, a general request was sent to all the Deans of the University of Tampere, which led to meetings on faculty level. Faculties were allowed to decide by themselves who to include in the meetings, and compositions varied. The survey was completed within a two-month period, from September to October Naturally, the time limit had its effects on how the task was planned and completed. Meetings with representatives from TUT, TAMK and interest groups were held mainly during September, and meetings with the faculties of the University of Tampere were organised in mid-october. A table below lists all the meetings, their main participants and topics discussed. Date Informant(s) Main topic 14 September 2017 Director Matti Salo Science Center of Pirkanmaa Hospital District 18 September 2017 Director Helena Laaksonen Finnish Social Science Data Archive, data management 19 September 2017 Research Environment Manager Pekka Savolainen Research Infrastructures at Tampere University of Technology 20 September 2017 Data Management Specialist (SOC) Turkka Näppilä Data management 22 September 2017 Chief Information Officer Jussi Kivistö, Learning Technology Manager Pasi Kytöharju Computational research infrastructures, IT-support, infrastructure portals 22 September 2017 Research Director Perttu Heino Research Infrastructures at Tampere University of Applied Sciences 26 September 2017 Director (Laboratory Services) Petteri Malkavaara, Laboratory Manager Anja Rovio Research infrastructures on Kauppi campus, Laboratory Services as an organisational model 27 September 2017 Specialist Juha Herrala Computational research infrastructure, specifically TCSC 5 October 2017 Data Protection Specialist Jukka Tuomela, Data Security Specialist Juha-Matti Heimonen, Document Management Specialist Jenni Sorvisto 9 October 2017 Professor (Vice Director of BMT Institute) Anne Kallioniemi 10 October 2017 Dean Antti Lönnqvist, Research Director Mika Skippari 11 October 2017 Dean Risto Honkonen /Faculty s researchers Data protection, data security, data management, archiving Research infrastructures at the Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences Research infrastructures at Faculty of Management Research infrastructures at Faculty of Education 3

4 12 October 2017 Dean Kati Iltanen/Faculty s researchers Research infrastructures at Faculty of Natural Sciences 17 October 2017 Dean Juha Teperi Research infrastructures at Faculty of Social Sciences 17 October 2017 Dean Päivi Pahta, Professor Roope Raisamo Research infrastructures at Faculty of Communication Sciences At the University of Tampere, the survey was taken to faculty level because, unlike at Tampere University of Technology, research infrastructures had not been examined before and no university-level discussion had taken place. Moreover, the survey treated Tampere University of Applied Sciences as a larger entity, since their level of research is not scientific. Furthermore, the number of research infrastructures is much smaller in TAMK compared to UTA and TUT, and they are mainly used in development and survey projects jointly with enterprises. Nevertheless, TAMK does have a significant amount of high-level teaching infrastructure in the form of laboratories, for example. Conclusions, Observations and Recommendations An overall conclusion of the survey focusing on research infrastructures is that significant variation exists on Tampere3 level, and the infrastructures more than cover the entire definition of the Finnish Academy. Usage is versatile because in addition to research, the same infrastructures are in many cases used for teaching, as well as in joint projects with enterprises. It became evident that selling out the use of infrastructures to outsiders requires common guidelines. Infrastructures in the form of services should be supported and developed further because they reach a large number of users and have proven to be extremely useful for research. In addition to the range of infrastructures themselves, there is also ample local variation in acquisitions, administration and upkeep. Thus, in order to simplify practices on Tampere3 level, there is clearly a need for a centralized service model of laboratory engineers or staff scientists. The support for infrastructures should, however, not be faculty-based so that continuity and broad level of knowledge can be guaranteed. At the moment, different or non-existent support systems create inequality among faculties and researchers. UTA, TUT and TAMK have all high quality, valuable research infrastructures, which boost the image of the new University and enable top-level research. In order to improve knowledge within the organization and increase visibility to outsiders, information on research infrastructures must be easily available to everyone. Special attention needs to be paid to the lifecycle of infrastructures, from proposals and acquisition decisions all the way to eventual replacement. The discussions related to the survey revealed that careful attention must also be paid to data management issues, and common guidelines and services should be created for data management as well. Moreover, demand for computational infrastructure requires planning, especially in the case of data intensive calculations. Cooperation should be promoted at Tampere3 level so that individual calculation clusters would be avoided. The need for file storage also requires attention. Acquisitions, Administration and Upkeep At the moment, some of the infrastructures do not have support for administration and upkeep at all, and the responsibility is carried by individual researchers or not at all. Research infrastructures are too valuable to be neglected, and the working time of researchers should not be used for laboratory engineers duties. A common and equal model for maintaining infrastructures must be created for Tampere3. The staff scientist job description, which TUT introduces to its personnel in 2018, could be suitable for infrastructure upkeep in Tampere3, because it entails the academic-level support for infrastructure usage that nearly all faculties consider necessary. 4

5 In terms of maintaining and developing the research infrastructures on Tampere3 level, it would be advisable to introduce the position of a General Manager of Research Infrastructures. The person hired would be responsible for the entirety of research infrastructures. Separate guidelines regarding research infrastructures should be written into research strategy. These would then create the framework for all infrastructure operations. TUT s investment plan for infrastructures should be capitalized and developed for Tampere3. Acquisitions and administration must consider versatile and efficient use of infrastructures. Mostly the idea of centralized support services for infrastructures was considered to be good, but in some cases there was desire to have a faculty-specific lab-tech. Supporting personnel could be hired by University Services. The Research Center Assessment report, which states that staff has slowly become used to centralized support, also promotes this view. Employees of Laboratory Services mostly maintain laboratories on Kauppi Campus, but the core services located on the same premises do have some academic members of staff, whose employment is funded from different sources. The model for upkeep in Kauppi Campus could be simplified even if funding would come from various sources. IT-administration, Software Requirements, Computational Infrastructure Several needs towards IT-services, software and computational capacity were expressed in the discussions leading to this report. The requirements are related both to research infrastructures as well as to research activities in general. The following recommendations should be considered in the future: Technical support for infrastructures used in research should be available even though the systems or equipment would not follow the general norm. User support would act in cooperation with the actual administration and upkeep of the infrastructure. In justifiable cases, administrator-level user rights to computers should be allowed to researchers. The new, joint University must have modern, well-functioning communication systems for research purposes both in national and international context. Virtual operational environments require consideration and contributions. Protected connections or a protected way to share data that does not rely on multinational, commercial service providers systems must be available. The University must provide sufficient file storage space and backup systems for research purposes. IT-services need to have expertise that considers the requirements of academic research in an international context. Data protection and data security and their influence to everyday research must be accounted for when planning new software acquisitions. Investing into new programme licenses or giving them up must be negotiated jointly with the researchers of a faculty. Mere financial reasons should not define the decisions. If a new type of programme is bought, the University must offer training to researchers for using it. Researchers should be guided to use primarily the national IT Center for Science, CSC, when a single computer s computational capacity is no longer sufficient. In specific needs, the use of TCSC is an option. In terms of computational infrastructure, it is advisable to start looking for solutions on Tampere3 level. Different needs must first be manifested, and then it is possible to define to what extent TUT s TCSC, for example, could be developed to meet them. Unlike Pure current research information system, SoleCris is considered to be a very clumsy tool. Pure entails a research infrastructure portal. The University Library is responsible for planning new Cris investments. 5

6 Research infrastructures must be described and listed, for example, with the help of a research infrastructure portal. This way, both staff and outsiders can have an idea of what is available. The possibility to use a new Cris system for saving, maintaining and browsing infrastructure-related information must be investigated before final decisions are made. Data Management Data management and saving require university-level guidelines, which also consider data protection, data security and archiving. The instructions need to take into account not only the principles of Open Science and Research, but also the fact that data comes in many different sizes and formats. Existing local and national structures such as the Finnish Social Science Data Archive, FSD, and Research Data Storage service IDA should be benefited from. There is a clear need for centralized data anonymizations services. A joint service would save the working time of researchers to actual research activities, and it would help ensure that anonymization is properly completed. Premises Joint use of facilities and research infrastructures beyond faculty and field limits must be promoted. Efficient use of premises on all campuses must be enhanced. Research infrastructures must be maintained throughout their lifecycle in such a manner that old equipment is not stored in valuable facilities for no reason. When planning offices, the needs of research should also be taken into account. Nowadays research is mostly completed in groups of people, which is why open-space offices are needed. However, at the same time staff should also have the opportunity to work in peace in a traditional office environment, it they find that suitable and necessary for their work. 6