Reports and other publications

"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

he project "VORAUS: Further developing established quality assurance formats: Which VORreservations and consensuses does a partially randomised SELECTION of research projects encounter in the scientific field?" was funded by the BMBF from April 2019 to March 2022. The study investigated reservations and consensus in the scientific field regarding partial randomisation. On this basis, it was clarified what is currently considered appropriate in science. Prior to a quantitative survey on the topic, the data from which is also available as a data package (DOI: https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:vorausquanti:1.0.0), problem-centred interviews were conducted with [...] Full Abstract: https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:vorausquali:1.0.0

Research funding systems are not isolated systems - but embedded in a larger scientific system with an enormous influence on the system. This paper aims to analyze the allocation of competitive research funding from different perspectives: How reliable are decision processes for funding? What are the economic costs of competitive funding? How does competition for funds affect doing risky research? How do competitive funding environments affect scientists themselves, and which ethical issues must be considered? We attempt to identify gaps in our knowledge and propose recommendations for policymakers and funding agencies, including empirical experiments of decision processes and collection of data on these processes.

The Scientists Survey was initiated in 2010. It is intended as a long-term barometer for science. Because the 2023 edition was the fourth wave, many topics, such as attitudes and opinions on science policy for example, can be examined over time in trends analyses. Additionally, the timing of the surveys waves has enabled a particular set of research questions: while the current cohort was surveyed directly at the end of the pandemic, the preceding wave took place directly before the start of the first extensive restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This "historical coincidence" gives insights into the way researchers worked in the time before, during and after the pandemic.

wgtdistrim trims extreme sampling weights using the weight distribution approach suggested by Potter (1990). The reciprocal of the sampling weights are assumed to follow a (scaled) beta distribution. The parameters of the beta distribution are estimated from the sampling weights and the trimming levels (cut-offs) are computed for the specified percentiles. Sampling weights that are more extreme than the specified percentiles are trimmed to these percentiles and the excess is distributed equally among the untrimmed sampling weights so that the sum of the trimmed sampling weights equals the sum of the untrimmed sampling weights. This process is repeated a specified number of times (or until the trimmed sampling weights do no longer change).

This deliverable provides a summary of the findings of Work Package 7 of the GRANteD project. The results are based on seven online surveys carried out among researchers in six European countries. In Austria, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden, applicants to specific research funding programs were surveyed. In Germany, a representative survey was conducted among academics as potential applicants at universities (DZHW Scientist Survey). In addition, the data of doctoral graduates of the DZHW PhD panel were analyzed. The overall findings indicates that there are hardly any gender differences in application behavior of academics.

This text summarized the recommendations that can be distilled from the research done in the GRANteD project, and from the interactions with the Stakeholder Committee, the Scientific Advisory Board, and at other exchanges with researchers in the field and with stakeholders in different interactions.

This protocol describes the objectives and the methodological approach of a scoping review. The review considers German- and English-language empirical studies that deal with factors influencing the use of evidence in the higher education and science sector.

This paper investigates the relationship between age and attaining a tenured position in academia (postdoctoral researcher or professorship at a university of applied sciences or university). Following considerations about ageism towards doctoral graduates who were 40 years and older (40+) upon attaining a PhD and Robert K. Merton’s idea of cumulative advantages in academic careers (Matthew-Effect), we differentiate between biological and academic age. We test the relationships and the resources accumulated behind the latter using data from the DZHW PhD Panel 2014. Applying piecewise constant exponential estimations and an entropy balancing, we find that PhDs aged 40+ experience a significantly positive effect on attaining a professorship.