Ulrike Schwabe

Nacaps, the National Academics Panel Study, is a new longitudinal study of doctoral candidates and doctorate holders in Germany funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The project aims at providing nationwide cross-sectional and longitudinal data on doctoral candidates and doctorate holders in Germany regarding their study conditions as well as their career trajectories within and outside of academia. The Nacaps study series apply a panel design to multiple cohorts. Nacaps 2018 is the first cohort in this series of studies. In 2019, all doctoral candidates registered at 53 higher education institutions entitled to award PhDs/doctorates in Germany [...] Full Abstract: https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:nac2018:3.0.0

Nacaps, the National Academics Panel Study, is a new longitudinal study of doctoral candidates and doctorate holders in Germany funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The project aims at providing nationwide cross-sectional and longitudinal data on doctoral candidates and doctorate holders in Germany regarding their study conditions as well as their career trajectories within and outside of academia. The Nacaps study series apply a panel design to multiple cohorts. Nacaps 2018 is the first cohort in this series of studies. In 2019, all doctoral candidates registered at 53 higher education institutions entitled to award PhDs/doctorates [...] Full Abstract: https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:nac2018:3.0.0

While large and highly societally relevant, the group of doctoral students still plays a subordinate role in the well-being literature. To narrow this research gap, we investigate how their life satisfaction (LS) trajectories developed throughout the Covid-19 pandemic in Germany. We draw on set-point, adaptation, family, and gender theories to examine doctoral students’ LS trajectories before, at the onset of, during, and after the pandemic. Thereby, we consider not only shorter-term but also longer-term consequences of the pandemic.

The article focuses on students with health impairments that have adverse effects on their studies, within the German higher education system. Using data from “The student survey in Germany: best: Studying with health impairments” we present current results on the composition of this group, on their drop-out intention and experienced discrimination during their studies. There exist notable differences within this group according to the type and severity of impairment.

Nacaps, the National Academics Panel Study, is a new longitudinal study of doctoral candidates and doctorate holders in Germany funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The project aims at providing nationwide cross-sectional and longitudinal data on doctoral candidates and doctorate holders in Germany regarding their study conditions as well as their career trajectories within and outside of academia. The Nacaps study series apply a panel design to multiple cohorts. Nacaps 2018 is the first cohort in this series of studies. In 2019, all doctoral candidates registered at 53 higher education institutions [...] Full Abstract: https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:nac2018:2.0.0

"The Student Survey in Germany" (2021) is a newly designed study that integrates three previously separate student surveys (Beuße et al., 2022): the Social Survey (Middendorff et al., 2017; Middendorff & Wallis, 2023), the Student Survey (Multrus et al., 2017; Multrus, 2021) and the survey "best - Studying with impairments" (Poskowsky et al., 2018; Unger et al., 2012). The study is designed as a cross-sectional survey with a long-term character. The new, integrated student survey thus continues the long tradition of the Social Survey and the Student Survey as important cross-sectional long-term observation studies for describing and analysing higher education and the student [...] Full Abstract: https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:sid2021:1.0.0

It continues to be a puzzle that women are disproportionally often dropping out of academic careers. Researchers and policymakers have suggested that same-gender supervisors are important for tightening this ‘leaky pipeline’. Especially in subjects with a strong overrepresentation of men, it seems likely that female supervisors work as positive role models and help preventing discrimination. Anticipating this effect, female doctoral students might also prefer supervisors of the same gender. Therefore, we ask how widespread a gender match is between doctoral student and supervisor in Germany and whether a gender match between supervisors and doctoral students is beneficial for the doctorate and for a possible scientific career thereafter.