Research software quality considerations vary significantly depending on one's role in the research ecosystem. The Personas View recognizes that different stakeholders have distinct responsibilities, priorities, and levels of engagement with software quality practices. Understanding these differences enables more targeted guidance and ensures that quality frameworks serve the diverse needs of the research software community.
The RSQKit identifies five primary personas within the research landscape, each with specific software quality interests and responsibilities:
Researcher who codes: Scientists and researchers who develop software as part of their research activities, ranging from simple analysis scripts to more complex tools. Their primary focus is often on functionality and getting research results, though they benefit from guidance on maintainability and reproducibility practices.
Research Software Engineer (RSE): Professional software developers working in research contexts who bring software engineering expertise to research projects. They typically prioritize technical quality dimensions like maintainability, testability, and performance, while also understanding research-specific requirements.
Principal Investigator: Research leaders responsible for project oversight, funding, and strategic direction. Their software quality interests often center on sustainability, compliance, risk management, and ensuring software supports research objectives and reproducibility.
Policy Maker: Individuals involved in developing guidelines, standards, and policies for research software at institutional, national, or international levels. They focus on frameworks for assessment, recognition, funding criteria, and alignment with broader research integrity goals.
Trainer: Educators and training coordinators who teach software development skills to researchers. They need to understand quality practices across all levels and translate complex concepts into accessible learning materials appropriate for diverse audiences.
Different personas emphasize different aspects of the EVERSE quality framework:
Technical Dimensions: RSEs typically lead on technical quality implementation, while researchers who code need guidance on achieving adequate technical quality without extensive software engineering background.
FAIR Principles: All personas value FAIR software, but researchers and PIs may focus more on discoverability and reusability, while RSEs implement the technical infrastructure to achieve FAIRness.
Open Source Practices: Policy makers and PIs often drive open source decisions at strategic levels, while RSEs and researchers who code handle implementation details like licensing and contribution workflows.
Sustainability: PIs and policy makers focus on long-term planning and funding models, while RSEs and trainers work on technical and educational approaches to sustainability.
As research software progresses through the three-tier model, the likelihood of role specialization tends to increase:
Analysis Code (Tier 1): Often developed by researchers who code working independently, with minimal role differentiation.
Prototype Tools (Tier 2): May involve collaboration between researchers who code and RSEs, with PIs providing oversight and direction.
Research Software Infrastructure (Tier 3): Typically requires teams with specialized roles, including dedicated RSEs, formal project management, policy oversight, and structured training programs.
Effective research software quality often emerges from collaboration between personas rather than isolated individual efforts:
- Researchers who code and RSEs collaborate on balancing research needs with technical best practices
- PIs and Policy makers align project goals with institutional and community standards
- Trainers work across all personas to build capacity and share knowledge
- RSEs often serve as bridges between technical implementation and research requirements
The Personas View helps in:
Tailoring Quality Guidance: Different personas need different types of information, tools, and support to contribute effectively to software quality.
Resource Allocation: Understanding persona-specific needs helps prioritize development of tools, training materials, and support services.
Communication Strategies: Quality initiatives can be framed in ways that resonate with each persona's priorities and constraints.
Career Development: Recognizing distinct personas supports career path development and professional recognition for different types of contributions to research software quality.
The Personas View intersects with other EVERSE framework views:
- Different science clusters may emphasize certain personas or have additional domain-specific roles
- Software lifecycle stages may require leadership from different personas
- Three-tier progression often involves expanding the range of personas involved in software development and maintenance
This view ensures that the EVERSE framework serves the real people working with research software, acknowledging their diverse backgrounds, responsibilities, and contributions to software quality and excellence.