Publications

We found that: (1) Attention to SET originated in the US in the 1970s, spreading to German-speaking countries in the mid-1990s and continuing in China and Latin America in the early 2000s. (2) SET is commonly viewed as a control tool deserving methodological improvement, while bias is debated in the US. We also found local trajectories: (3) Whereas in the US and Latin America SET is primarily seen as a management tool, German-speaking and Chinese authors reflect more on improving teaching. Chinese scholars consider SET a valid instrument for state control associated with artificial intelligence. Also, (4) SET is commonly used in medical education in the US and the German-speaking region and in physical education in China.

This edition of the Bologna Process Implementation Report charts important progress made over two decades when it comes to mobility, quality assurance and recognition, but also points to the work needed in the future. The report shows how European higher education systems advanced with concerted national reforms. This in itself is a remarkable achievement. Nevertheless, the process was not all plain sailing. Some countries moved faster than others, and some embedded reforms more deeply. As a result of reaching different levels of implementation, the foundations of the European Higher Education Area are not yet stable enough. Students, researchers and higher education institutions may still face unnecessary obstacles in their work together.

The DZHW Graduate Panel 1989 (initially HIS Graduate Panel) is part of the DZHW Graduate Survey Series, which compiles information on study, career entry, career development and further qualifications of higher education graduates using standardised surveys. The Graduate Panel 1989 ist the first one of the Survey Series. Since then, every fourth graduate year (cohort) has been surveyed. For each graduate cohort, a series of survey waves are carried out, with each wave occurring at differing time intervals following the completion of degree. https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:gra1989:2.0.0

Repeated calls for responsible research metrics and professional codes of conduct in evaluative bibliometrics highlight the need to investigate which qualifications and competencies enable a proficient application of bibliometric methods and indicators. Taking competence research as a point of departure, this chapter delineates salient dimensions of professional competence in bibliometric research evaluation by reviewing a selected subset of the literature. The reviewed literature focuses on handbooks, monographs, and scholarly and practitioner articles that introduce theory and methodology of bibliometrics and showcase applications to scholars and practitioners mainly outside of the scientometric research community.

Grant selection and decision-making generally take place in panels. Therefore, the main focus of the project is to measure the level of gender bias at the panel level, and to explain the differences in gender bias using characteristics of the panels and of the (organizational) context of the panels. A second source of gender bias addressed in the project is the application process. The project also investigates the factors influencing the decision to apply for research grants, and the possible gender differences emerging from that. Finally, the question is addressed whether possible bias in grant allocation translates into gender bias in the subsequent academic career.