Browsing
     by title


0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

or enter first few letters:   
OK
Peer Reviewed
See detailWelbevinden van Europese ouderen
Drooglever-Fortuijn, Joos; Ferring, Dieter UL; van der Meer, M. et al

in Geron (2004), 6(4), 14-18

Detailed reference viewed: 24 (0 UL)
See detailWelche Kinder werden in Schulen behindert?
Powell, Justin J W UL

in Rehberg, Karl-Siegbert (Ed.) Die Natur der Gesellschaft. Verhandlungen des 33. Kongresses der DGS (2008)

Detailed reference viewed: 75 (0 UL)
Full Text
See detailWelche Organisationsformen produzieren Wissenschaft? Expansion, Vielfalt und Kooperation im deutschen Hochschul- und Wissenschaftssystem im globalen Kontext, 1900-2010
Dusdal, Jennifer UL

Doctoral thesis (2017)

Overview and introduction “Which organizational forms produce science? Expansion, diversity, and cooperation in Germany's higher education and science system embedded within the global context, 1900-2010” ... [more ▼]

Overview and introduction “Which organizational forms produce science? Expansion, diversity, and cooperation in Germany's higher education and science system embedded within the global context, 1900-2010”. Already the title of my dissertation manifests an approach that examines the topic of the development of scientific productivity in the German higher education and science landscape from different perspectives: levels, dimensions, and an extensive timeframe. Deriving from and contributing to the international research project “Science Productivity, Higher Education, Research and Development, and the Knowledge Society” (SPHERE), my research focuses on the investigation of the influence of higher education development and science capacity-building on scientific knowledge production, globally, comparatively, and considerable depth for Germany, a key science producer for well over a century. Focusing mainly on the different structures and institutional settings of the German higher education and science system, the dissertations shows how these affected and contributed to the long-term development of scientific productivity worldwide. The historical, comparative, and in-depth analyses are especially important in light of advancing globalization and internationalization of science, stronger networks of scientists worldwide, and the emergence of the “knowledge society”. The research design combines macro- and meso-level analyses: the institutionalized and organizational settings in which science is produced. Since information about single authors was limited in availability, extensive micro-level analyses were not possible here, yet the research articles analyzed were all written and published by individuals working in organizations, which are in the center of analysis here. By reference to the dimensions expansion, diversity, and cooperation, I elaborated the frame of my investigation, and sorted my research questions, including country, organizational field and form, and organizational levels. The structure of this work (see outline) addresses these themes and the observed timeframe spans the years from 1900 to 2010 – more than a century (see section 1.2). My main goal was to investigate how and why scientists publish their research results in peer-reviewed journal articles. The point is to emphasize the importance of scientific findings/discoveries, because non-published results are non-existent for the scientific community. From the ways and in which formats scientists publish their work, we can deduce how science is organized (within and across disciplines). My dissertation analyzes publications in peer-reviewed journals, because they are the most important format – alongside patents in applied fields – to disseminate new knowledge in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and health (hereafter STEM+ fields). Articles not only record new knowledge, but also contribute to the reputation of researchers and their organizations. Journal publications in reputable journals with peer-review have become the “gold standard” measure of scientific productivity. Within the last several decades, the scientization of many dimensions of societal life proceeded, and the generation of new knowledge increasingly became the focus of political, economic, and social interests – and research policymaking. Therefore, it is important to identify the institutionalized settings (organizations/organizational forms) in which science can best be produced. Here, the diverse types of organizations that produce science – mainly universities, research institutes, companies, government agencies and hospitals – were identified and differences and similarities of these organizational forms were analyzed on the basis of their character, goals, tasks, and the kinds of research their members produce. In a first step, I show why I structured my work at the interface of higher education research, science studies, and bibliometrics (see chapters 2 and 5). Analyzing publications is still the key task of bibliometrics, but the results are used by many other actors as well: higher education managers, politicians, and scientists themselves to make claims about the quality of science, to compare each other, or to influence the structure, organization, and output of the higher education and science system. While it is difficult to make direct statements about the quality of research on the basis of simply counting the number of research articles a scientist publishes, the quality of journals is used as a proxy to compare across disciplines. To measure quality, other parameters are necessary. Thus, here statements focus on the quantity of science produced, not on the intrinsic quality of the analyzed research articles, the specific research achievements of individual scholars, organizations or organizational forms, or even countries. Nevertheless, output indicators elaborated here definitely show the huge expansion of scientific production and productivity, the stability of the research university over time as the most important science producer in Germany, but also rising differentiation and diversification of the organizational forms contributing to overall scientific output. Furthermore, the start of a considerable and on-going rise in national and international collaborations can be dated to the early 1990s. The chapter about the multidisciplinary context (see chapter 2) discusses the relationship between higher education research and science studies in Germany as well as the special position of scientific knowledge in comparison to other forms of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is generated, distributed, and consumed by the scientific community. To get an overview about the most important studies in the field, and to contextualize my work within the already existing empirical studies, I describe the current state of research in chapter 3. Research questions Section 1.2 provides a detailed description of my research questions: Which organizational forms produce science? 1. How has worldwide and European scientific productivity developed between 1900 and 2010 in comparison? 2. How has the German higher education and science system been embedded in the global developments of higher education and science over time? 3. How has scientific productivity in Germany developed between 1900 and 2010? 4. Among all science-producing organizational forms, what do the key organizational forms contribute to scientific productivity? 5. Which organizational forms provide the best conditions for scientific productivity? 6. Which single organizations produce the most research in Germany? 7. What is the impact of increasing internationalization of research on national and international cooperation, measured in publications in scientific journals? Theoretical framework Theoretically (see chapter 4), I apply a neo-institutional (NI) framework to explore and explain both the tremendous expansion of higher education and science across the world and considerable differences across time and space in the institutional settings, organizational forms, and organizations that produce scientific research in Germany. Sociological NI focuses on understanding institutions as important in guiding social action and shaping processes of social development. Such an approach emphasizes the development, functioning, and principles of institutions. Milestones in NI describe the nexus of organization and society supposing that organizational structures express myths and reflect ideals institutionalized in their environment. While capturing, copying, and asserting these, structural similarity (institutional isomorphism) between organizations in society will be established. The concept of “organizational field” emphasizes relationships between organizations within an environment. Organizational fields (communities) consist of all relevant organizations. In section 4.1.2 I discuss the differences between institutions and organizations and the difficulty of a distinction of the terms, especially in German-speaking sociology, which does not distinguish clearly between these terms. Fundamentally, NI approaches differ in the dimensions or pillars and levels of analysis they privilege (see figure 5, p. 80), but they share fundamental principles and the theoretical framework. Thus NI is particularly suitable for a multi-level analysis of scientific productivity across time and space. The historical development of the German higher education and science system must analyzed considering also global developments, because on the one hand it had an enormous impact on the development of other systems worldwide, and, on the other hand, global trends affect the on-going institutionalization and organization(s) of science in Germany. Intersectoral and international cooperation is growing and becoming increasingly important, leading to diverse networks within and between higher education and science systems worldwide. The classical, national case study is hardly longer possible, because macro units like countries are highly interdependent, embedded in global, regional and local relationships, such that borders between the global and the national dimension are increasingly blurred. Nevertheless, countries are units with clearly defined boundaries and structures, thus they can be handled as units to compare. The theoretical perspectives and different levels of analysis addressed here are displayed in Figure 5. I apply the “world polity” approach as a broader lense with which to make sense of the truly global arena of higher education and science (macro level). The focus of this perspective is on global and international structures and processes, which developed over time. Through this perspective, I explore global diffusion and formal structures of formal principles and practical applications. Combining historical and sociological institutionalism helps to focus on developments and processes over time on the meso level, to explain how institutions have developed and change(d). The concepts of “critical junctures” and path dependencies are useful to explain these processes over time. To describe the transformation of knowledge production over the entire twentieth century, and to analyze different organizational forms that produce science in Germany, two prevalent theoretical concepts are discussed: Mode 1 versus Mode 2 science, and the Triple-Helix model to describe the relationship between science, industry and state. In “The New Production of Knowledge” Michael Gibbons and his colleagues describe the transformation of knowledge from an academic, disciplinary, and autonomous – “traditional” – organization of science (Mode 1) with a focus on universities as the key organizational form, to a more applied, transdisciplinary, diverse, and reflexive organization of science (Mode 2) that features a more diverse organization of science, relying on a broader set of organizations producing knowledge. Within the literature, debates center on whether this new model has replaced the old, and which of these models best describes the contemporary organization of science (here: the STEM+ fields). In turn, the Triple-Helix model preserves the historical importance of the universities. This approach assumes that future innovations emerge from a relationship between universities (production of new knowledge), industry (generation of wealth), and state (control). Data and methods In these analyses, only peer reviewed journal publications were used – as the best indicator for measuring the most legitimated, authoritative produced science. This focus enabled an investigation of publications in-depth and over a 110 year timeframe. Research articles in the most reputable, peer-reviewed, and internationally reputable journals are the gold standard of scientific output in STEM+. The data I used is based on a stratified representative sample of published research articles in journals in STEM+-fields. My measure relies on the key global source for such data, the raw data from Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) (the other global database is Elsevier’s Scopus, which also indexes tens of thousands of journals), which was extensively recoded. Methodologically, my approach is based on a combination of comparative institutional analysis across selected countries and historically of the German higher education and science system, and the systematic global evaluation of bibliometric publication data (see chapter 6). The SCIE includes more than 90 million entries (all types of research), mainly from STEM+-fields. I focus on original research articles, because this type of publication contains certified new knowledge. The SPHERE dataset covers published research articles from 1900 to 2010. From 1900 to 1970, we selected data in 5-year-steps in the form of a stratified representative sample. From 1975 onwards full data is available for every year. Depending on the research question, either five or ten-year steps were analyzed. A detailed description of the sampling and weighting of the data can be found in chapter 6. In consideration of the criteria above, I analyzed 17,568 different journals (42,963 journals were included into the database if we count the same journals in different years), and a total of 5,089,233 research articles. To prepare the data for this research, it had to be extensively cleaned and coded. Very often our international research team found missing information on the country level and/or on the level of organizations/organizational forms. From June 2013 to December 2015, research in the archives of university libraries was necessary to manually add missing information, particularly organization location and author affiliations. In the field of bibliometrics, we find different methods to count publications. In this work, I mainly apply the “whole count” approach (see table 1, p. 126). This decision is based on the assumption that every author, organization, or country contributed equally to a publication. An overestimation of publications can’t be precluded, because research articles are counted multiple times, if a paper is produced in co-authorship, which has been rising worldwide over the past several decades. The absolute number of publications (worldwide, Europe, Germany) is based on a simple counting of research articles (without duplicates, in cases of co-authored articles). Summary of the most important results The empirical part of my work is divided into three parts. In the following sections, I will present the most important findings. The global picture – higher education and science systems in comparison The central question of my research project was “which organizational forms produce science”? For a better understanding and classification of the results of my case study, I embedded the German higher education and science system into the European and global context. I answered the questions “how did the worldwide and European scientific productivity developed between 1900 and 2010 in comparison”, and “how was/is the German higher education and science system embedded in global developments of higher education and science over time” as follows: First, I show that the worldwide scientific growth followed a pure exponential curve between 1900 and 2010 (see figures 3 and 10; pp. 50, 147) – and we can assume that this strong upward trend continues today. The massive expansion of scientific production had and still has a tremendous influence on societal developments, beyond simply economic and technical developments, but rather transforming society. I show that higher education and science systems worldwide exhibit communalities, which have led to similar developments and expansion of scientific productivity. The comparison of important European countries (Germany in comparison with Great Britain, France, Belgium and Luxembourg) uncovered the contribution of the development and spread of modern research universities and the extraordinary and continued rise in publication output (see section 7.2; Powell, Dusdal 2016, 2017a, 2017b in press). Within the global field of science, three geographical centers of scientific productivity have emerged over the twentieth century: Europe, North America, and Asia. Their relative importance fluctuates over time, but today all three centers continue to be the key regions in the production of scientific research in STEM+ journals. Especially in Asia, the growth rates have risen massively in recent years (Powell et al. 2017 in press). Second, I investigated that all countries worldwide invest more into research and development (R&D) (figure 9, p. 140). These investments have a clear impact on the scientific productivity of nations, yet there are important differences between countries in absolute production and productivity rates. Alongside direct investments in R&D or the application of patents in STEM+-fields that influence the expansion of science, the capacity for producing more knowledge fundamentally depends on rising student enrolments, a growing number of researchers, the widening of research activities into various arenas of society, the development of products, and the (re-)foundation of universities (Powell, Baker, Fernandez 2017 in press). As part of the higher education expansion and massification during the 1960s and 70s, the numbers of researchers and students rose tremendously. The growth of scientific publications thus results from the on-going institutionalization of higher education and science systems worldwide. The growth of publications is also explained by the steady growth in the number of researchers working within these growing – and increasingly interconnected – systems. Third, I could reject the argument of Derek J. de Solla Price that the pure exponential growth of scientific literature has to flatten or would slow-down several decades after the advent of “big science” (see paragraph 2.4; figure 4 and 10; p. 53, 147). Although radical historical, political, economical, and technical events (see figure 11, p. 150) led to punctual short-term decreases in publication outputs, the long-term development of universities and other organizational forms producing science led to sustained growth of scientific publications, with the numbers of publications rising unchecked over the long twentieth century. In 2010, the worldwide scientific productivity in leading STEM+ journals was about one million articles annually. Fourth, I could show that the absolute numbers have to be put into perspective and standardized in relation to the investments in R&D, the size of the higher education and science systems, the number of inhabitants (see figure 12, p. 159), and the number of researchers (table 3, p. 162; figure 13, p. 164). The initial expansion of scientific publications in STEM+-fields is based on a general growth of higher education and science systems. The different institutional settings and organizational forms that produce science have an impact on scientific productivity. The selected country case studies – Germany, Great Britain, France, Belgium and Luxembourg – demonstrate that systems with strong research universities are highly productive; they seem to provide conditions necessary for science. As a result, not only the number and quality of researchers is important, but also the institutional and organizational settings in which they are employed. Fifth, in international comparison, Germany continues to contribute significantly to scientific productivity in STEM+ fields. With an annual growth rate of 3.35%, Germany follows the United States and Japan. In 2014, German governments invested €84.5 billion in R&D – 2.9% of overall GDP. The EU-target of 3% by 2020 was barely missed. In 2010, Germany produced 55,009 research articles (see table A5). In comparison to Great Britain, France, Belgium and Luxemburg, Germany still leads in scientific output in Europe –comparing just the absolute numbers. The size of the country itself and the institutionalization of the higher education and science systems influence publication outputs, of course, with these absolute numbers in relation to other key indicators showing a different picture. Standardized by the number of inhabitants, Germany published less articles per capita than Belgium and Great Britain. The number of researchers amounted to 327,997 (FTE) in 2010. The ratio of inhabitants to scientists was 1,000:4. Among these countries studied in-depth, Luxembourg and Great Britain had more researchers per capita than did Germany. The interplay of the organizational forms of science in Germany between 1900 and 2010 On the basis of the analysis of the global and European contexts, and development of worldwide scientific productivity over time in chapter 7, I started the in-depth case study of Germany. Bridging this overview and the following in-depth analyses is a chapter on the institutionalization of the German higher education and science system (see chapter 8). Here, I described the most important institutions and organizations and the organizational field – universities, extra-university research institutes and universities of applied sciences. Furthermore, I discussed the differences between West and East Germany during their division (1945–1990). Summarizing the most important results shows that the development of publications in Germany follows global and European trends (on a lower scale) (see figure 16, p. 208). Over time, Germany experienced pure exponential growth of scientific publications and a rising diversity of organizational forms that contribute to scientific productivity (see sections 9.1 and 9.3). I answered the following three research questions: “how has the scientific productivity in Germany developed between 1900 and 2010”, “among all science producing organizational forms, what do the key organizational forms contribute to scientific productivity”, “which organizational forms provide the best conditions for scientific productivity”, and “which single organizations are the most research intense in Germany”? First, the growth curve of scientific publications in Germany turns out as expected – it shows pure exponential graph, comparable with the worldwide and European development of scientific productivity between 1900 and 2010. Here, too, cataclysmic events such as the two world wars and the Great Depression as well as reunification had only short-term (negative) impact (figure 11, p. 150) on scientific productivity, without even a medium-term slow-down or flattening of the curve. By 2010, the total number of publications in STEM+ fields by researchers in German organizations topped 55,000 in one year alone. Second, a detailed examination and comparison of the development of scientific productivity in West Germany and East Germany between 1950 and 1990 showed that the growth rate of Germany (altogether) was based mainly on steady growth of scientific publications in West Germany (see figure 17, p. 211). The growth curve of the former GDR was quite flat and proceeded on a very low level. As a result, I conclude that the GDR’s higher education and science system, based on its academy model, did not provide conditions for scientific productivity as optimally as did the BRD. Third, a detailed analysis of the “key classical” organizational forms of science – universities and extra-university research institutes – show that universities were and are the main producers of scientific publications in STEM+ from 1975 to 2010 (see figure 18, p. 217). On average, university-based researchers produced 60% of all articles and defended their status against other organizational forms, which leads to the rejection of the Mode 2 hypothesis. Non-university publications reached an average of 40%. But that does not mean that other organizational forms were not producing science as well. The percentage share of articles is ultrastable and shows only marginal variations. The thesis that the proportion of university publications should decrease over time can be rejected for the period from 1975 to 2010. This suggests that scientific productivity of universities is actually rising, since despite decreasing financial support (R&D) in favor of extra-university research institutes, the universities produced more research articles with less resources over time. Fourth, although not only scientists within universities and research institutes publish their research in scientific journals, jointly these organizational forms have produced more than three-quarters of all research articles since 1980. Already in the earlier years, they produced a large number of scientific articles. Other organizational forms also generate scientific knowledge (for an extensive description of the organizational form matrix, see table 4, pp. 222f.). Especially scientists in firms, government agencies, and hospitals publish articles in peer-reviewed journals in STEM+ (see figures 19 and 20; pp. 220, 246). Indeed, the universities have been the driving force of scientific productivity for more than a century. With their specific orientation to basic research and their linkage of research and teaching, they provide conditions that facilitate the production of science. Universities are among the oldest institutions with a high degree of institutionalization. All other organizational forms (academies, associations, infrastructures, laboratories, military, museums and non-university education) were identified in the dataset played only a minor role and were summarized in the category “further types”. Fifth, the analysis of the ten most research-intensive single organizations in Germany in the year 2010 confirmed the results. Only universities and institutes were part of this group. A summary of publications of single institutes under their umbrella organizations shows that the institutes of the Max Planck Society and of the Helmholtz Association are the leading science producers in Germany, outpacing the scientific productivity of universities, but only when aggregating the contributions of dozens of individual institutes (see table 5, p. 259f). An analysis of single institutes shows that these research institutes cannot compete with universities, because of their size and the number of researchers. The Charite – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, a hybrid organization, is another leading science producer in Germany. National and international cooperation of scientific research Finally, increasing internationalization of research has impacted on national and international cooperation. leading to collaboratively-written publications in scientific journals. Through advancing globalization, national and international scientific cooperation increased in volume and importance. International cooperation in STEM+ is facilitated by the reputation of the research organization and of the co-authors, higher visibility within the scientific community and more possibilities for interdisciplinary research as well as better or more specialized facilities. Today, more than a third of all research articles worldwide are produced in scientific collaboration; only around a quarter are single-authored articles. In contrast to Humboldt’s principle “in Einsamkeit und Freiheit” (in loneliness and freedom), research is no longer done by one scientist, but is much more likely the result of collaboration. Research networks are increasingly important, and researchers share their common interests on a research question, publishing their results in joint publications. Researchers, organizations, and indeed countries differ in the ways they organize their research and thus how they enable research and collaboration. This depends on location, size, higher education and science system, the organizational field and organizations. Here, varying patterns of scientific cooperation were presented, showing a massive increase in scientific collaboration in (inter)national co-authorships over time. Until the 1990s, researchers in all investigated countries (France, Germany, Great Britain, USA, Japan, China, Belgium, Luxembourg) published their research articles mainly as single-authored papers. Only since the 1990s have co- and multi-authored publications risen (considerably): In 2000, only a third of all publications were published by one author. In 2010, the proportion reached its lowest level with only one-fifth of all papers single-authored (see table 6, pp. 279f). Countries differ considerably in their amount of collaboratively-written research articles. References Powell, J. J. W. & Dusdal, J. (2016). Europe’s Center of Science: Science Productivity in Belgium, France, Germany, and Luxembourg. EuropeNow, 1(1). http://www.europenowjournal.org/2016/11/30/europes-center-of-science-science-productivity-in-belgium-france-germany-and-luxembourg/. Last access: 13.12.2016. Powell, J. J. W. & Dusdal, J. (2017a): Measuring Research Organizations’ Contributions to Science Productivity in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math in Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Minerva, (). Online first. DOI: 10.1007/s11024-017-9327-z. Powell, J. J. W. & Dusdal, J. (2017b in press). The European Center of Science Productivity: Research Universities and Institutes in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. IN Powell, J. J. W., Baker, D. P. & Fernandez, F. (Hg.) The Century of Science: The Worldwide Triumph of the Research University, International Perspectives on Education and Society Series. Bingley, UK, Emerald Publishing. Powell, J. J. W., Baker, D. P. & Fernandez, F. (2017 in press). The Century of Science: The Worldwide Triumph of the Research University, International Perspectives on Education and Society Series. Bingley, UK, Emerald Publishing. Powell, J. J. W., Fernandez, F., Crist, J. T., Dusdal, J., Zhang, L. & Baker, D. P. (2017 in press). The Worldwide Triumph of the Research University and Globalizing Science. IN Powell, J. W., Baker, D. P. & Fernandez, F. (Hg.) The Century of Science: The Worldwide Triumph of the Research University, International Perspectives on Education and Society Series. Bingley, UK, Emerald Publishing. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 436 (53 UL)
Full Text
See detailWelche Organisationsformen produzieren Wissenschaft? Zum Verhältnis von Hochschule und Wissenschaft in Deutschland
Dusdal, Jennifer UL

Book published by Campus Verlag (2018)

Wie haben die Institutionen des deutschen Hochschul-und Wissenschaftssystems die Entwicklung wissenschaftlicher Produktivität beeinflusst? Jennifer Dusdal zeigt, welche Organisationen Wissenschaft ... [more ▼]

Wie haben die Institutionen des deutschen Hochschul-und Wissenschaftssystems die Entwicklung wissenschaftlicher Produktivität beeinflusst? Jennifer Dusdal zeigt, welche Organisationen Wissenschaft produzieren und wie sich ihre Ziele, Aufgaben und Arten von Forschung unterscheiden. Sie hat Zeitschriftenartikel aus den Natur- und Technikwissenschaften sowie der Medizin untersucht, die zwischen 1900 und 2010 publiziert wurden. So wird deutlich, dass die Universität die wichtigste Wissenschaft produzierende Organisationsform geblieben ist und die wissenschaftliche Produktivität aufgrund gestiegener Forschungskooperationen exponentiell gewachsen ist. Für diese Arbeit erhielt die Autorin 2018 den Ulrich-Teichler-Preis für herausragende Dissertationen der Gesellschaft für Hochschulforschung. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 142 (10 UL)
Full Text
See detailWelche Qualität für wen? Leerstellen einer (immer noch) aktuellen Debatte
Neumann, Sascha UL

Article for general public (2015)

Detailed reference viewed: 32 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailWelche Unterscheidungen machen einen Unterschied? Zur sozialen Selektivität der Sprachverwendung in „Maison Relais pour Enfants“
Neumann, Sascha UL

in Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation = Journal for Sociology of Education and Socialization (2011), 31(4), 349-362

Detailed reference viewed: 74 (9 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailWelche Vergleichbarkeit zwischen C-Tests in verschiedenen Sprachen?
Reichert, Monique UL

Scientific Conference (2008)

Detailed reference viewed: 28 (0 UL)
See detailWelchen Beitrag leistet die Schule zum Zusammenhalt in der Gesellschaft?
Willems, Helmut UL

Scientific Conference (2009)

Detailed reference viewed: 52 (2 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailWelchen Einfluss haben Stereotypizität und Kohärenz auf das Verstehen einer Personbeschreibung
Ochs, Nadine; Renaud, Dagmar; Krolak-Schwerdt, Sabine UL

Scientific Conference (2007, March)

Detailed reference viewed: 21 (1 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailWelchen Nutzen hat psychologische Operationsvorbereitung? Eine Meta-Analyse der Literatur zur psychologischen Operationsvorbereitung Erwachsener
Johnston, Marie; Vögele, Claus UL

in Schmidt, L. R. (Ed.) Psychologie medizinischer Eingriffe (1992)

Detailed reference viewed: 46 (4 UL)
See detailWelchen Test zur Hochbegabungsdiagnostik verwenden?
Baudson, Tanja Gabriele UL

Article for general public (2015)

Detailed reference viewed: 41 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe welcome and integration contract of Luxembourg: satisfaction with the quality of services according to non-EU immigrants
Odero, Angela UL; Karathanasi, Chrysoula UL; Baumann, Michèle UL

in Pracana, Clara; Wang, Michael (Eds.) International psychological Applications Conference and Trends (2016)

Evaluating satisfaction with the quality of services is a central concern of social and educational programs, whose mission is to adhere as closely as possible to the needs of the population. Based on ... [more ▼]

Evaluating satisfaction with the quality of services is a central concern of social and educational programs, whose mission is to adhere as closely as possible to the needs of the population. Based on methodological and investigator triangulation methods, our aims were to analyze the level of satisfaction with the Welcome and Integration Contract of Luxembourg (Contract d’accueil et d’integation CAI) and its respective activities (citizenship courses, language courses and an orientation day). First, 233 out of 1084 Non-EU immigrant beneficiaries responded to a self-administrated questionnaire. Second, 11 semi-structured focus groups with 50 volunteers were conducted around four themes: Quality of activities, organization, availability of support personnel and utility of the information received. More than 72% of the participants were very satisfied with the quality, organisation and availability of personnel, in regard to the information session and the civic courses. Divergences exist because various needs were recognized. Potential activities to reduce the quality gap were proposed, for instance the creation of an interactive online platform where the beneficiaries could regularly get information and, exchange experiences and/or help each other whenever possible. The dynamism and interactivity in the focus groups revealed that the users would like to actively contribute to improving the process. Indeed, the needs and requirements of each immigrant group cannot be totally covered by these activities as they stand. Involving users in the strategy and action plans would help create more accurate solutions. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 157 (15 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailWelcome or not? – Natives’ security feelings, attachment and attitudes toward acculturation of immigrants
Goedert, Christine UL; Albert, Isabelle UL; Barros Coimbra, Stephanie UL et al

in International Journal of Intercultural Relations (2019), 69

Cultural diversity due to immigration has become a key topic in many societies today. The question of how the native population experiences these developments is of prime importance for intercultural ... [more ▼]

Cultural diversity due to immigration has become a key topic in many societies today. The question of how the native population experiences these developments is of prime importance for intercultural relations and sets the base for acculturation of immigrants. Drawing on attachment and multiculturalism research, we supposed here that general and specific feelings of security might be related to more positive attitudes toward cultural diversity, whereas feelings of threat might be related to less openness. More precisely, the present study investigated how natives’ general attachment (secure or fearful) as well as their specific feelings of (cultural or economic) security might be related to their expectations about acculturation of immigrants in the multicultural context of Luxembourg. The sample included N = 134 Luxembourg nationals with an average age of M = 45.02 (SD = 17.41) who filled out an online questionnaire. Results revealed that self-reported fearful general attachment was positively related to more unwelcoming acculturation orientations. Relations between general attachment and acculturation orientations were mediated by feelings of cultural security, which had strong effects on host nationals’ (un)welcoming acculturation orientations over and above general attachment. Findings suggest that (un)welcoming orientations toward immigrants, entailing openness for cultural contact and exchange, are related to feelings of cultural and economic security which are partly biased by a general secure or fearful attachment. Feelings of security seem thus to provide a secure base for tolerance and openness to cultural diversity which are needed in order to deal successfully with the challenges of today’s multicultural societies. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 118 (4 UL)
See detailWelcome Speech
Baltes-Löhr, Christel UL

Scientific Conference (2012, September 26)

Detailed reference viewed: 31 (6 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe welfare impact of global migration in OECD countries
Burzynski, Michal UL; Docquier, Frederic; Aubry, Amandine

in Journal of International Economics (2016), 101

This paper quantifies the effect of global migration on the welfare of non-migrant OECD citizens. We develop an integrated, multi-country model that accounts for the interactions between the labor market ... [more ▼]

This paper quantifies the effect of global migration on the welfare of non-migrant OECD citizens. We develop an integrated, multi-country model that accounts for the interactions between the labor market, fiscal, and market size effects of migration, as well as for trade relations between countries. The model is calibrated to match the economic and demographic characteristics of the 34 OECD countries and the rest of the world, as well as trade flows between them in the year 2010. We show that recent migration flows have been beneficial for 69% of the non-migrant OECD population, and for 83% of non-migrant citizens of the 22 richest OECD countries. Winners are mainly residing in traditional immigration countries; their gains are substantial and are essentially due to the entry of immigrants from non-OECD countries. Although labor market and fiscal effects are non-negligible in some countries, the greatest source of gain comes from the market size effect, i.e. the change in the variety of goods available to consumers. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 149 (13 UL)
See detailThe welfare impacts of an immigration amnesty: how drastic could they be?
Machado Carneiro, Joël UL

Scientific Conference (2015, July)

Detailed reference viewed: 27 (0 UL)
See detailThe welfare impacts of an immigration amnesty: how drastic could they be?
Machado Carneiro, Joël UL

Scientific Conference (2015, December 11)

Detailed reference viewed: 47 (2 UL)