Reports and other publications

Unfortunately, there is no result available for this search combination

Nacaps 2018.

Briedis, K., Lietz, A., Ruß, U., Schwabe, U., Seifert, M., ... & Hoffstätter, U. (2024).
Nacaps 2018. Daten- und Methodenbericht zur National Academics Panel Study 2018 (1.-4. Befragungswelle – Promovierende). Hannover: DZHW. https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:nac2018:2.0.0
Abstract

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

prof*panel: The first longitudinal survey study on university professors in Germany.

Begemann, C., & Kizilirmak, J. M. (2024).
prof*panel: The first longitudinal survey study on university professors in Germany. Hannover: DZHW.
Abstract

This flyer on the prof*panel, the DZHW professors survey, provides an overview of the possible paths to a full professorship (tenured). This is supplemented by insights into the educational background depending on the type of professorship in our panel.

A pilot study for " Linked Open Research Data " (LORDpilot): a LOD-based Concept Registry for social science research data.

Daniel, A., Goebel, J., Kern, D., Klein, D., May, A., ... & Zapilko, B. (2024).
A pilot study for "Linked Open Research Data" (LORDpilot): a LOD-based Concept Registry for social science research data. Joint final report to the Project (public part). Hannover: DZHW.
Abstract

Reusing research data is an important part of research practice in the social and economic sciences. To find suitable data, researchers need functional search options. However, a comprehensive search for data is hampered by inconsistent or missing semantic indexing because different survey programs use their own terminology for documentation. In most cases, there is no link between the measured theoretical concepts and the variables. From the user's perspective, the fragmentation of data documentation hampers data retrieval and thus limits the research potential of existing data. The challenge, therefore, lies in the concept-oriented indexing of data. [...] Full Abstract: https://zenodo.org/records/11047523

Die Studierendenbefragung in Deutschland 2021. Daten- und Methodenbericht zur Erhebung.

Becker, K., Schwabe, U., Völk, D., Koopmann, J., Gerdes, F., ... & Klein, D. (2024).
Die Studierendenbefragung in Deutschland 2021. Daten- und Methodenbericht zur Erhebung. Hannover: DZHW.
Abstract

"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

VORAUS: Etablierte Formate der Qualitätssicherung weiterentwickeln: Auf welche VORbehalte und Einverständnisse trifft eine teil-randomisierte AUSwahl von Forschungsprojekten im wissenschaftlichen Feld?

Johannsen, J., Philipps, A., Barlösius, E., & İkiz-Akıncı, D. (2024).
VORAUS: Etablierte Formate der Qualitätssicherung weiterentwickeln: Auf welche VORbehalte und Einverständnisse trifft eine teil-randomisierte AUSwahl von Forschungsprojekten im wissenschaftlichen Feld? Daten- und Methodenbericht zum Datenpaket der qualitativen Teilstudie des Projekts VORAUS. Hannover: DZHW. https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:vorausquali:1.0.0
Abstract

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

The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds.

Schweiger, G., Barnett, A., van den Besselaar, P., Bornmann, L., De Block, A., ... & Conix, S. (2024).
The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds. Arxiv Preprint. Ithaca, NY: Arxiv.
Abstract

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.

Barometer für die Wissenschaft. Ergebnisse der Wissenschaftsbefragung 2023.

Fabian, G., Heger, C., & Fedzin, M. (2024).
Barometer für die Wissenschaft. Ergebnisse der Wissenschaftsbefragung 2023. Berlin: DZHW. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ea5kr
Abstract

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.

Bildung und Qualifikation als Grundlage der technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2024.

Kerst, C., & Meier, D. H. (2024).
Bildung und Qualifikation als Grundlage der technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2024. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem (1-2024). Berlin: Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation.

Why refugee students are more likely to drop out of pre-university programs.

Berg, J. (2024).
Why refugee students are more likely to drop out of pre-university programs. Let's Talk About by cogitatiopress. Online: cogitatio press.

Ausstattungs-, Kosten- und Leistungsvergleich Fachhochschulen 2021.

Jenkner, P., Dölle, F., Faßbinder, S., Sanders, S., & Winkelmann, G. (2024).
Ausstattungs-, Kosten- und Leistungsvergleich Fachhochschulen 2021. Kennzahlenergebnisse für die Länder Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Sachsen-Anhalt und Schleswig-Holstein auf Basis des Jahres 2021. Hannover: DZHW.

Publikationen aus DFG-geförderten Projekten.

Meier, A., Mittermaier, B., Möller, T., Ottaviani, M., Scheidt, B., & Stahlschmidt, S. (2023).
Publikationen aus DFG-geförderten Projekten. Praxis und Nutzbarkeit von Funding Acknowledgements. Bonn: DFG.

Die Studierendenbefragung in Deutschland: best3.

Steinkühler, J., Beuße, M., Kroher, M., Gerdes, F., Schwabe, U., ... & Buchholz, S. (2023).
Die Studierendenbefragung in Deutschland: best3. Studieren mit einer gesundheitlichen Beeinträchtigung. Hannover: DZHW.

WGTDISTRIM: Stata module to trim extreme sampling weights (version 1.0.0) [Stata-ado].

Lang, S., & Klein, D. (2023).
WGTDISTRIM: Stata module to trim extreme sampling weights (version 1.0.0) [Stata-ado]. Hannover: Github.
Abstract

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).

Synthesis report on gender differences in grant application behaviour.

Möller, T., Holzinger, F., Schön, L., Wedening, P., & Deixelberger, B. (2023).
Synthesis report on gender differences in grant application behaviour. Berlin: DZHW.
Abstract

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.

What to do against gender bias in grant allocation?

van den Besselaar, P., Mom, C., Cruz-Castro, L., Sanz Menéndez, L., Möller, T., ... & Husu, L. (2023).
What to do against gender bias in grant allocation? Amsterdam: TMC.
Abstract

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.

Contact

Anja Gottburgsen
Dr. Anja Gottburgsen +49 511 450670-912