Showing 1 – 10 of 10 results.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Ithaka S+R Library Director Survey, United States, 2022 (ICPSR 38876)
Released/updated on: 2024-01-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2022-01-01--2022-12-31
The Ithaka S+R Library Survey 2022 examines strategy and leadership issues from the perspective of library deans and directors at not-for-profit four-year academic institutions across the United States. Respondents were asked about their strategies related to services, collections, diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA), budget, and personnel, their leadership roles within and outside of the library, and their vision for the role of the library. Demographic variables include respondents' number of years in their position, respondents' age, race/ethnicity, and Carnegie Classification.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Ithaka S+R Library Survey, United States, 2019 (ICPSR 37867)
Released/updated on: 2020-09-24
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2019-10-22--2019-12-02
The Ithaka S+R Library Survey 2019 examines strategy and leadership issues from the perspective of library deans and directors at not-for-profit four-year academic institutions across the United States. Respondents were asked about their strategies related to services and collections, discovery, budget and staffing, their leadership roles within and outside of the library, and their vision for the role of the library. Demographic variables include respondents' number of years in their position, respondents' age, their institution type (public/private), and Carnegie Classification.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Industry Partnership Views Survey, United States, 2016 (ICPSR 37033)
Released/updated on: 2018-06-27
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2016-04-01--2016-08-31
The contained collection was designed to assess potential perceptions of two hypothetical health science research collaborations. The studies were also designed to test the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to determine public opinions on conflicts of interest.
The researchers performed three experimental studies to examine how different combinations of partners in a research collaboration influence subjects' perceived procedural fairness and legitimacy based on collaborative partnerships.
Datafiles:
Experience 1: 1000 cases, 92 variables
Experience 2: 1058 cases, 88 variables
Experience 3: 2107 cases, 76 variables
For more information about this study, please visit the study publication here.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Scientific Data Reuse Survey, United States, 2015 (ICPSR 37071)
Released/updated on: 2018-06-19
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2015-10-05--2015-11-30
This study explores the factors that influence the data reuse behaviors of scientists and identifies the generalized patterns that occur in data reuse across various disciplines. An online survey was distributed to the scientists through Qualtrics. The initial email invitation to the survey was sent to 15,703 scientists within academic institutions on October 5, 2015, with a reminder sent on November 10, 2015. The survey closed on November 30, 2015. 1,987 email messages (12.65%) were returned and a total of 13,716 participants (87.35%) received the email invitation to participate in the survey. This research used the National Science Foundation (NSF) STEM discipline codes (2014) for the respondents to indicate their specific academic disciplines based on their current research activities. Of these participants, 1,528 scientists from 94 specific disciplines (as categorized by NSF STEM discipline codes (2014)), completed the survey with less than 5% of missing values.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Ithaka S+R Library Survey 2016 (ICPSR 37027)
Released/updated on: 2018-04-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2016-11-16--2016-12-16
The Ithaka S+R Library Survey 2016 examines strategy and leadership issues from the perspective of academic library deans and directors. Respondents were asked about their strategies related to services, collections, and discovery, their leadership roles within and outside of the library, and their vision for the role of the library. Demographic variables include respondents' number of years in their position, and their institution type (public/private) and Carnegie Classification.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Supporting Practice in the Arts, Research, and Curricula (SPARC), 2012-2015 [United States] (ICPSR 36823)
Released/updated on: 2017-05-31
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2012-01-01--2015-12-31
With support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the goal of the Supporting Practice in the Arts, Research, and Curricula (SPARC) research project is to highlight the role of the arts in research universities and to support new modes of practice across the arts, research, curricula.
Using open-ended interviewee responses as the primary data source, combined with other sources of evidence and secondary research, the project explores the models, obstacles, implementation strategies, costs, and impact of arts-integrative practices on research, teaching, and promotion.
From 2012-2015, the Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities (a2ru) conducted a baseline data collection effort and study of 46 universities and including over 900 interviews. The goal was to discover the models, obstacles, implementation strategies, costs, and impact of arts integrative practices on research, teaching, and learning in higher education.
Following from the Phase I data collection, Phase II of SPARC Project (2015-2018) seeks to synthesize and disseminate the research findings.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Ithaka S+R | Jisc | RLUK UK Survey of Academics 2015 (ICPSR 36557)
Released/updated on: 2016-12-02
Geographic coverage: United Kingdom
Time period: 2015-01-01--2015-12-31
The UK Survey of Academics 2015, conducted by the partnership of Ithaka S+R, Jisc, and Research Libraries UK (RLUK), examines the attitudes and behaviors of academics at higher education institutions across the United Kingdom. Respondents were asked about resource discovery and access; research topics and practices; research dissemination, including data management and preservation; instruction and perceptions of student research skills; and the role and value of the academic library. Demographic information includes title, academic field, number of years of employment at the respondent's current college or university, number of years working in the respondent's field, age, and gender.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Ithaka S+R Library Survey 2013 (ICPSR 35352)
Released/updated on: 2014-10-10
Geographic coverage: Canada, United States
Time period: 2013-01-01--2013-12-31
The Ithaka S+R Library Survey 2013 was an opinion-based survey of academic library deans and directors at four-year colleges and universities in the United States and Canada. The survey aimed to measure attitudes related to library direction and strategy, staffing levels, budgeting priorities for material resources, print and electronic collections management, and the role of the library in promoting information literacy. Respondents were also asked to detail strategies for enhancing information discovery services in order to meet the changing needs of students and researchers. Information regarding the size and type of each respondent's educational institution was also recorded.
Curated
International Comparative Study on the Management, Productivity, and Effectiveness of Research Teams and Institutions (ICSOPRU), 1971-1989 (ICPSR 9471)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Argentina, Hungary, Europe, Africa, Ukraine, Egypt, China (Peoples Republic), Ghana, Global, India, Spain, Latin America, Middle East, South Korea, Austria, Belgium, Asia, Finland, Brazil, Poland, Mexico, Nigeria
Time period: 1971-01-01--1989-12-31
The goal of the ICSOPRU project was to improve the management of research teams and institutions and increase awareness of their responsibility concerning proper application of research results. Concrete objectives were twofold: (1) on the international level, to make widely available comparable facts and experiences concerning the management of research teams and to promote multilateral as well as bilateral cooperation in this field, and (2) on the national level to provide all those concerned (science policy-makers, research managers, scientists, engineers) with substantive information on the state of their national research potential and to encourage them, on the basis of this information compared eventually with similar information from other countries, to take self-corrective actions as needed to improve the level of effectiveness and productivity of the research teams and institutions. Seventeen countries from Africa, the Arab States, Asia, Europe and Latin America took part in ICSOPRU. There were four stages or rounds of data collection: six countries (Austria, Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden) in Round 1 (between February and September 1974), six countries (Argentina, Egypt, India, Republic of Korea [South], Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R.) in Round 2 (between June 1978 and September 1981), five countries (Brazil, India, Nigeria, Spain, Ukrainian S.S.R.) in Round 3 (between October 1981 and November 1985), and four countries (China, Ghana, Hungary, Mexico) in Round 4 (between May 1985 and June 1987). Each round of questionnaires had different items (except for Rounds 2 and 3 which were the same). Round 1 items included general administrative information relevant to the research units answered by the administrator of the unit, scientific information on the research unit and information relevant to the unit's head answered by the head of the unit, individual information answered by scientists and engineers of the unit, individual information answered by technicians of the unit, and external evaluation of the research units from various scientific and administrative perspectives answered by external evaluators. Rounds 2 and 3 included general information about the research unit answered by the head of the unit, information on the respondent and his or her evaluation of the research unit's management, items on productivity and effectiveness answered by head of the unit along with scientists, engineers, and technicians of the unit, EV-rating of the research unit's effectiveness on a series of dimensions dealing with scientific or social criteria and administrative criteria answered by external evaluators. The fourth round of questionnaires included information on the institutional environment of the research unit answered by the head of the institution, general information on the research unit answered by the head of the unit, information on the respondent and his or her evaluation of the research unit's management, items on productivity and effectiveness answered by the head of the unit, scientists, engineers, and technicians.
Curated
Comparative Study on the Organization and Performance of Research Units, 1974 (ICPSR 7547)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Europe, Finland, Poland, Global
Time period: 1974-01-01--1974-12-31
This data collection is the result of a cooperative six nation project that was coordinated by the UNESCO secretariat. It contains data collected in six European countries during the first round of an international comparative study of the organization and performance of scientific research units. Drawing from the growing tradition of survey research approaches to the study of management practices in science, in research, and in experimental development, this study provided for a multi-faceted evaluation of scientific productivity and effectiveness at the levels of both the individual scientist and the research unit. The survey was conducted by six participating national research teams that administered five standardized questionnaires, translated into the national languages of the participating countries, to a sample of scientists drawn from nine major fields of science and technology and representing approximately 200 research institutions in each of six countries: Austria, Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Poland, and Sweden. The questionnaires were administered respectively to the head of the research unit, to the administrative officer, to staff scientists, to technical support staff, and to external evaluators. This data collection is an aggregated file of the five respondent levels, using the research unit as the case for analysis. In all, there are 1,222 research units in the sample. The questionnaires incorporated a wide variety of indicators for socio-psychological and sociological factors such as satisfaction with the work environment, ratings of supervisory qualities, perceptions of influence patterns, and the latitude in the choice of research themes. Additionally, the collection includes actual research output of the scientists individually and of the research units as a whole, as well as information on the professional experience of the research workers, the availability and quality of resources, and the extent of communication within and between research units.