Discussion
Discuss Decisions, Using Evidence
Use these prompts after the taught activities or with a research group. Start with the fictional cases, then transfer the reasoning to a non-sensitive description of your own work. A justified alternative is useful evidence of learning; a missing fact is a question to investigate.
After FAIR Research Outputs
In pairs, choose one case and take one minute each to explain:
- Which FAIR judgement changed once you looked beyond download availability?
- What would a new researcher or system misunderstand?
- Which improvement should come first, and which evidence supports that priority?
- What useful metadata could remain available if files could not be released?
Invite two pairs to report contrasting priorities. The room identifies the principle each improvement supports; one improvement may support several principles. Keep the action and the unresolved check in your assessment worksheet.
After Open Research Practices
Compare two plans for the Urban Shade project: a plan that makes every file public immediately, and a plan that describes each output and justifies different release conditions.
Ask:
- Which decisions change when the analysis is prospective rather than already explored?
- What would a preprint reader need to understand about status and limitations?
- Can the article be Open Access while participant transcripts remain controlled?
- What can be disclosed about an access restriction without exposing protected information?
- Which contribution could disappear from the record if only authorship were discussed?
Have each pair defend one decision. Another pair asks what evidence would change it. Keep the revised choice, its reason and the next check in your strategy worksheet.
A Research-Group Conversation
Choose one output and agree a concrete action:
| Prompt | Record |
|---|---|
| What should a future user be able to discover and understand? | A specific user and reuse purpose |
| Which detail is missing today? | Evidence from the current record |
| Who can supply or approve it? | A named role |
| What can be shared safely, and what needs review? | Output-level conditions |
| How will we know the improvement helped? | A colleague’s discovery or interpretation check |
Avoid using public access as the only measure of success. A clear explanation of a justified restriction may improve the record without changing access to its files.
Questions To Take to Support
Bring a brief description of the output, proposed use, known rights/access conditions and the decision you cannot resolve. Examples include which manuscript version to deposit, whether an agreement permits reuse of a map, or how to describe controlled data without disclosing identities.
Use Nottingham Libraries’ Open Access guidance, research data support, or Digital Skills Clinics as appropriate. A publication policy question and a digital workflow question may need different advice.