2022, Senft, Matthias, Stahl, Ulrike, Svoboda, Nikolai

To meet the future challenges and foster integrated and holistic research approaches in agricultural sciences, new and sustainable methods in research data management (RDM) are needed. The involvement of scientific users is a critical success factor for their development. We conducted an online survey in 2020 among different user groups in agricultural sciences about their RDM practices and needs. In total, the questionnaire contained 52 questions on information about produced and (re-)used data, data quality aspects, information about the use of standards, publication practices and legal aspects of agricultural research data, the current situation in RDM in regards to awareness, consulting and curricula as well as needs of the agricultural community in respect to future developments. We received 196 (partially) completed questionnaires from data providers, data users, infrastructure and information service providers. In addition to the diversity in the research data landscape of agricultural sciences in Germany, the study reveals challenges, deficits and uncertainties in handling research data in agricultural sciences standing in the way of access and efficient reuse of valuable research data. However, the study also suggests and discusses potential solutions to enhance data publications, facilitate and secure data re-use, ensure data quality and develop services (i.e. training, support and bundling services). Therefore, our research article provides the basis for the development of common RDM, future infrastructures and services needed to foster the cultural change in handling research data across agricultural sciences in Germany and beyond.

2017, Mielke, J., Vermaßen, H., Ellenbeck, S.

This paper evaluates current stakeholder involvement (SI) practices in science through a web-based survey among scholars and researchers engaged in sustainability or transition research. It substantiates previous conceptual work with evidence from practice by building on four ideal types of SI in science. The results give an interesting overview of the varied landscape of SI in sustainability science, ranging from the kinds of topics scientists work on with stakeholders, over scientific trade-offs that arise in the field, to improvements scientists wish for. Furthermore, the authors describe a discrepancy between scientists’ ideals and practices when working with stakeholders. On the conceptual level, the data reflect that the democratic type of SI is the predominant one concerning questions on the understanding of science, the main goal, the stage of involvement in the research process, and the science–policy interface. The fact that respondents expressed agreement to several types shows they are guided by multiple and partly conflicting ideals when working with stakeholders. We thus conclude that more conceptual exchange between practitioners, as well as more qualitative research on the concepts behind practices, is needed to better understand the stakeholder–scientist nexus.