DDI description: Dynamics and Productivity of Research Activity in Universities 1990 DDI-kuvailu: Korkeakoulujen tutkimustoiminnan dynamiikka ja tuloksellisuus 1990 1089 Finnish Social Science Data Archive Finnish Social Science Data Archive Finnish Social Science Data Archive 3.0.0 Dynamics and Productivity of Research Activity in Universities 1990 [metadata]. Metadata version 3.0.0 (2024-07-05). Finnish Social Science Data Archive [producer and distributor]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.60686/t-fsd1089; URN: https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:fsd:T-FSD1089 FSD:n aineistokuvailut (FSD metadata records), joiden tekijä on Suomen yhteiskuntatieteellinen tietoarkisto (Finnish Social Science Data Archive), on lisensoitu Creative Commons 1.0 Yleismaailmallinen (CC0 1.0) -lisenssillä. FSD:n aineistokuvailut (FSD metadata records) by Suomen yhteiskuntatieteellinen tietoarkisto (Finnish Social Science Data Archive) are licensed under a Creative Commons 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) license. FSD:n aineistokuvailut (FSD metadata records) av Finlands samhällsvetenskapliga dataarkiv (Finnish Social Science Data Archive) är licensierade under en Creative Commons 1.0 Universiell (CC0 1.0) licens. Dynamics and Productivity of Research Activity in Universities 1990 Korkeakoulujen tutkimustoiminnan dynamiikka ja tuloksellisuus 1990 1089 urn:nbn:fi:fsd:T-FSD1089 10.60686/t-fsd1089 Kaukonen, Erkki Luukkonen, Terttu Stolte-Heiskanen, Veronica In accordance with the agreement between FSD and the depositor. Finnish Social Science Data Archive Individual datasets

Individual datasets that do not belong to any series.

3.0 3.0 Kaukonen, Erkki (University of Tampere) & Luukkonen, Terttu (Academy of Finland) & Stolte-Heiskanen, Veronica (University of Tampere): Dynamics and Productivity of Research Activity in Universities 1990 [dataset]. Data version 3.0 (2024-07-05). Finnish Social Science Data Archive [distributor]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.60686/t-fsd1089; URN: https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:fsd:T-FSD1089 research scientific personnel evaluation performance indicators scientific cooperation bibliometric analysis peer reviews Natural sciences Engineering and technology Medical and health sciences Social sciences Biotechnology Educational policy Social welfare policy

The survey contains interviews of researchers in six Finnish institutes of higher learning. The main themes pertained to the organisation of the departments' research activities, internationality, scientific communication, scientific publication, utilisation of the findings, and evaluation of university research. The aim of the study was to develop qualitative evaluation methods for scientific research, and find out the significance of resources to the functioning of the departments and the consequences of assessment methods. The researchers were asked how their working time was divided between research, teaching, administration, and other tasks. Relating to professional identity, they were asked about their motivation for choosing a scientific career, along with factors connected to work and working conditions. Scientific communication was studied by asking how the respondents stay in contact with foreign colleagues, what eventual obstacles there are to international contacts, and which countries are the most essential in view of the researchers' own research area. Relating to publishing of the results, the respondents were asked whether their most recent research report was a joint publication or a single author publication, who chose the publication channel, and why was that particular publication channel chosen.

One topic covered research performance assessment and assessment criteria. The respondents were asked what were the most important factors to be taken into account when assessing research performance. The researchers were also asked whether the evaluation criteria used in performance assessment in their field of study were acceptable, and if not, what changes were needed. The scientific activity of the researchers was studied by asking the position of the researchers' main project in the field of science, the duration of the project, size and composition of the research group, and the researchers' other research projects. The researchers were asked to assess their own research, the current situation in their own field of research, and the applicability of their research projects. Other research projects pertaining to the same research area in Finland and abroad, and eventual contacts of the respondents' projects with these were charted. The respondents were also asked to assess their own research in comparison to other research groups and to say what kind of research they felt was high quality research, and with what indicators should scientific successfulness be measured. The survey also contains information on the researchers' scientific output during the past three years.

Background variables included the respondent's position in the department, age, sex, degrees taken, and experience in research activities.

Autumn 1989 Spring 1990 Finland Finland Individual Individual Researchers at six Finnish universities Quantitative Cross-section CrossSection Kaukonen, Erkki Luukkonen, Terttu Stolte-Heiskanen, Veronica Non-probability: Purposive Nonprobability.Purposive

Six university departments from the two biggest universities and two universities of technology were chosen for the sample. The aim was to choose the departments so that they would represent different fields of research and academic institutions. Two departments represent natural sciences (zoology and biomedicine), two represent technical sciences (automation technology and automatic control engineering), one department represents exact sciences (mathematics and statistics), one stands for social sciences (social policy).

Face-to-face interview Interview.FaceToFace Semi-structured questionnaire Questionnaire.Semistructured There are no weight variables in the data. Detailed and specific data description in Finnish and English. The data are checked and processed in detail. If necessary, the data are anonymised. Finnish Social Science Data Archive The dataset is (A) openly available for all users without registration (CC BY 4.0). The data and its creators shall be cited in all publications and presentations for which the data have been used. The bibliographic citation may be in the form suggested by the archive or in the form required by the publication. Notify FSD of all publications where you have used the data by sending the citation information to user-services.fsd@tuni.fi. The original data creators and the archive bear no responsibility for any results or interpretations arising from the reuse of the data. Kaukonen, Erkki (1993). Tieteen moninaisuus ja arvioinnin ongelmat. Korkeakoulutieto 20(1), 16-23. Tieteen moninaisuus ja arvioinnin ongelmat Luukkonen, Terttu (1992). Is scientists' publishing behaviour reward-seeking?. Scientometrics, 24(2), 297-319. Is scientists' publishing behaviour reward-seeking? Stolte-Heiskanen, Veronica (1992). Research performance evaluation in the higher education sector: a grass-roots perspective. Higher education management, 4(2), 179-193. Research performance evaluation in the higher education sector: a grass-roots perspective daF1089_eng.sav 217 228 SPSS Data File [fsd_no] FSD study number FSD study number 217 1089 1089 1089.00 .000 [fsd_vr] FSD edition number FSD edition number 217 3.0 3.0 3.000 .0000 [fsd_id] FSD case id FSD case id 217 1 217 109.00 62.787 [kortti] Code form number Code form number 217 1 217 109.00 62.787 [laitos] Respondent's department Respondent's department 217 1 6 3.05 1.609 1 Veterinary Sciences 49 2 Automation Technology 41 3 Biomedicine 45 4 Control Technology 35 5 Social Policy 27 6 Mathematics and Statistics 20 [a1] Your present position in the department Your present position in the department 217 0 10 3.56 3.695 0 Researcher or Laboratory Technical Officer, Academy of F. 92 1 Research Associate, Academy of Finland 12 2 Junior Research Fellow, Academy of Finland 2 3 Senior Research Fellow, Academy of Finland 4 4 Lecturer or Instructor 3 5 Assistant or Research Associate 42 6 Lecturer or Senior Lecturer 14 7 Lecturer in Veterinary Sciences 2 8 Senior Assistant or Senior Research Associate 12 9 Associate Professor 12 10 Professor 22 [a2] Respondent's year of birth Respondent's year of birth 216 0 8 5.06 2.094 0 -1929 9 1 1930-1934 7 2 1935-1939 16 3 1940-1944 15 4 1945-1949 23 5 1950-1954 39 6 1955-1959 41 7 1960-1964 51 8 1965- 15 SYSMISS 1 [a3] Respondent's sex Respondent's sex 217 1 2 1.26 .439 1 Male 161 2 Female 56 [a4] What is your highest degree? What is your highest degree? 217 0 3 1.74 1.079 0 no degree 28 1 Master 77 2 Licentiate 35 3 Doctorate (PhD) 77 [a4a] Year when respondent completed Doctorate Year when respondent completed Doctorate 217 1 5 1.80 1.285 1 no degree 143 2 -1969 19 3 1970-1979 26 4 1980-1984 13 5 1985-1989 16 [a4b] Year when respondent completed Licentiate Year when respondent completed Licentiate 217 1 5 2.21 1.510 1 no degree 113 2 -1969 27 3 1970-1979 28 4 1980-1984 16 5 1985-1989 33 [a4c] Year when respondent graduated Year when respondent graduated 217 1 5 3.12 1.424 1 no degree 39 2 -1969 41 3 1970-1979 43 4 1980-1984 44 5 1985-1989 50 [a5] Respondent's research experience in years Respondent's research experience in years 217 0 4 1.65 1.145 0 none 40 1 1-5 years 68 2 6-10 years 42 3 11-20 years 62 4 over 20 years 5 [a6] Do you have experience of academic study abroad (min. 3 months)? Do you have experience of academic study abroad (min. 3 months)? 217 1 9 2.06 1.113 1 yes 23 2 no 189 9 NA 5 [a6a] Foreign country/countries in which respondent studied Foreign country/countries in which respondent studied 217 12 99 83.56 16.023 [a6b1] Foreign degree (first) Foreign degree (first) 217 0 9 7.34 2.172 0 no such degree 14 1 Master or equivalent 1 2 Licentiate or equivalent 1 3 Doctorate (PhD) or equivalent 5 8 no academic study abroad 189 9 NA 7 [a6b2] Foreign degree (second) Foreign degree (second) 217 0 9 7.63 1.757 0 no such degree 10 1 Master or equivalent 1 2 Licentiate or equivalent 0 3 Doctorate (PhD) or equivalent 0 8 no academic study abroad 199 9 NA 7 [a7] Have you done research work abroad? Have you done research work abroad? 217 0 1 .27 .444 0 no 159 1 yes 58 [a7a] Research abroad, in which country (first)? Research abroad, in which country (first)? 217 0 6 .71 1.344 0 no research abroad 159 1 Scandinavia 7 2 USA 21 3 Other Western European countries 24 4 Soviet Union 0 5 other socialist countries 2 6 other non-European countries 4 9 NA 0 [a7b] Research abroad, in which country (second)? Research abroad, in which country (second)? 217 0 6 .33 1.097 0 no research abroad 193 1 Scandinavia 6 2 USA 3 3 Other Western European countries 9 4 Soviet Union 1 5 other socialist countries 1 6 other non-European countries 4 9 NA 0 [a8a] What proportion of your working time (in %) is devoted to research? What proportion of your working time (in %) is devoted to research? 211 1 5 4.36 1.113 1 0 9 2 1.loka 12 3 marras.25 16 4 26-40 32 5 41-100 142 SYSMISS 6 [a8b] What proportion of your working time (in %) is devoted to teaching? What proportion of your working time (in %) is devoted to teaching? 211 1 5 2.47 1.471 1 0 85 2 1.loka 32 3 marras.25 28 4 26-40 41 5 41-100 25 SYSMISS 6 [a8c] What proportion of your working time (in %) is devoted to management/administration? What proportion of your working time (in %) is devoted to management/administration? 211 1 5 2.08 1.241 1 0 98 2 1.loka 42 3 marras.25 39 4 26-40 20 5 41-100 12 SYSMISS 6 [a8d] What proportion of your working time (in %) is devoted to other tasks? What proportion of your working time (in %) is devoted to other tasks? 211 1 5 1.42 .887 1 0 164 2 1.loka 18 3 marras.25 21 4 26-40 4 5 41-100 4 SYSMISS 6 [b9a] What is your motivation for embarking on a scientific career (most important personal motive)? What is your motivation for embarking on a scientific career (most important personal motive)? 217 1 99 6.25 9.590 1 recognition (authority in the scientific community) 2 2 responsibility 4 3 self-fulfilment in work, interest, inquisitiveness etc 132 4 career prospects 0 5 authority, power, chance to influence decision-making 1 6 salary 1 7 reputation, prestige, social position 0 8 job security 3 9 independence in work, freedom, flexibility 46 10 following the example set by prominent researchers 1 11 possibility to serve society, enhance progress 7 12 other motivation 17 13 not aiming to be a researcher, Master of Science thesis 1 99 can't say, NA 2 [b9b] What is your motivation for embarking on a scientific career (second most important personal motive)? What is your motivation for embarking on a scientific career (second most important personal motive)? 217 1 99 8.48 12.865 1 recognition (authority in the scientific community) 16 2 responsibility 6 3 self-fulfilment in work, interest, inquisitiveness etc 46 4 career prospects 10 5 authority, power, chance to influence decision-making 0 6 salary 5 7 reputation, prestige, social position 2 8 job security 7 9 independence in work, freedom, flexibility 98 10 following the example set by prominent researchers 5 11 possibility to serve society, enhance progress 10 12 other motivation 7 13 not aiming to be a researcher, Master of Science thesis 1 99 can't say, NA 4 [b9c] What is your motivation for embarking on a scientific career (third most important personal motive)? What is your motivation for embarking on a scientific career (third most important personal motive)? 217 1 99 10.12 17.857 1 recognition (authority in the scientific community) 31 2 responsibility 12 3 self-fulfilment in work, interest, inquisitiveness etc 21 4 career prospects 17 5 authority, power, chance to influence decision-making 4 6 salary 13 7 reputation, prestige, social position 8 8 job security 10 9 independence in work, freedom, flexibility 31 10 following the example set by prominent researchers 4 11 possibility to serve society, enhance progress 30 12 other motivation 28 13 not aiming to be a researcher, Master of Science thesis 0 99 can't say, NA 8 [b10] What are your chances of creative work and self-fulfilment in your present working environment? Would you say that you: What are your chances of creative work and self-fulfilment in your present working environment? Would you say that you: 217 1 9 2.36 .893 1 have problems in this respect 19 2 have some constraints 112 3 have no problems in this respect 84 9 can't say, NA 2 [b11a] Briefly describe these problems and constraints, or give examples of them (1. mention) Briefly describe these problems and constraints, or give examples of them (1. mention) 217 0 9 4.83 3.326 0 routine work, teaching, administration 40 1 lack of resources e.g. research assistance and equipment 22 2 lack of time 15 3 lack of permanent posts (including temporary posts) 3 4 decision-making dominated by professors 4 5 organisational constraints; industry, admin etc 23 6 lack of colleagues 5 7 other 17 8 not relevant 84 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 4 [b11b] Briefly describe these problems and constraints, or give examples of them (2. mention) Briefly describe these problems and constraints, or give examples of them (2. mention) 217 0 9 7.50 2.369 0 routine work, teaching, administration 6 1 lack of resources e.g. research assistance and equipment 11 2 lack of time 2 3 lack of permanent posts (including temporary posts) 3 4 decision-making dominated by professors 2 5 organisational constraints; industry, admin etc 5 6 lack of colleagues 5 7 other 11 8 not relevant 84 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 88 [b11c] Briefly describe these problems and constraints, or give examples of them (3. mention) Briefly describe these problems and constraints, or give examples of them (3. mention) 217 1 9 8.35 1.190 0 routine work, teaching, administration 0 1 lack of resources e.g. research assistance and equipment 4 2 lack of time 0 3 lack of permanent posts (including temporary posts) 0 4 decision-making dominated by professors 0 5 organisational constraints; industry, admin etc 1 6 lack of colleagues 0 7 other 10 8 not relevant 84 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 118 [b12a] Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: make full use of my knowledge, experience and abilities Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: make full use of my knowledge, experience and abilities 217 1 4 3.11 .826 0 not an important factor to me 0 1 very limited chances 7 2 limited chances 42 3 good chances 88 4 excellent chances 80 [b12b] Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: plan my own timetable and working schedule Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: plan my own timetable and working schedule 217 1 4 3.12 .881 0 not an important factor to me 0 1 very limited chances 9 2 limited chances 45 3 good chances 73 4 excellent chances 90 [b12c] Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: make a substantial contribution to science in my own research area Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: make a substantial contribution to science in my own research area 214 0 4 2.46 .962 0 not an important factor to me 4 1 very limited chances 32 2 limited chances 68 3 good chances 82 4 excellent chances 28 9 3 SYSMISS 0 [b12d] Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: possibility to design the content of my own research Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: possibility to design the content of my own research 216 0 4 3.06 .898 0 not an important factor to me 1 1 very limited chances 12 2 limited chances 39 3 good chances 86 4 excellent chances 78 9 1 SYSMISS 0 [b12e] Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: possibility to develop own ideas and get approval for them Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: possibility to develop own ideas and get approval for them 216 0 4 3.09 .793 0 not an important factor to me 1 1 very limited chances 6 2 limited chances 35 3 good chances 105 4 excellent chances 69 9 1 SYSMISS 0 [b12f] Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: possibility to work with researchers from different fields (multidisciplinary work) Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: possibility to work with researchers from different fields (multidisciplinary work) 215 0 4 2.49 .922 0 not an important factor to me 5 1 very limited chances 21 2 limited chances 80 3 good chances 81 4 excellent chances 28 9 2 SYSMISS 0 [b12g] Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: possibility to receive high level education Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: possibility to receive high level education 215 0 4 2.40 1.180 0 not an important factor to me 17 1 very limited chances 32 2 limited chances 53 3 good chances 73 4 excellent chances 40 9 2 SYSMISS 0 [b12h] Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: possibility to work with prominent researchers of my own field Thinking of your present job in the department, what are your chances of achieving the following: possibility to work with prominent researchers of my own field 216 0 4 2.34 .995 0 not an important factor to me 6 1 very limited chances 38 2 limited chances 74 3 good chances 72 4 excellent chances 26 9 1 SYSMISS 0 [b13] Thinking of your department as a research organisation: Thinking of your department as a research organisation: 217 1 9 2.20 1.418 1 you would make significant changes 53 2 you would make some changes 110 3 you are satisfied with the department 47 9 can't say, NA 7 [b14a] What kind of changes would you consider useful to the functioning of the department (first mention)? What kind of changes would you consider useful to the functioning of the department (first mention)? 217 0 9 4.68 2.896 0 openness, communication, democracy 25 1 co-operation between projects, groups within the depart 19 2 decrease the power held by professors 9 3 administrative problems, bureaucracy, flexibility 33 4 lack of permanent or temporary posts 20 5 problems of post-graduate education 16 6 co-operation with other departments 5 7 other 37 8 not relevant 47 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 6 [b14b] What kind of changes would you consider useful to the functioning of the department (second mention)? What kind of changes would you consider useful to the functioning of the department (second mention)? 217 0 9 6.90 2.914 0 openness, communication, democracy 15 1 co-operation between projects, groups within the depart 8 2 decrease the power held by professors 6 3 administrative problems, bureaucracy, flexibility 9 4 lack of permanent or temporary posts 8 5 problems of post-graduate education 5 6 co-operation with other departments 4 7 other 21 8 not relevant 47 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 94 [b14c] What kind of changes would you consider useful to the functioning of the department (third mention)? What kind of changes would you consider useful to the functioning of the department (third mention)? 217 0 9 8.47 1.368 0 openness, communication, democracy 1 1 co-operation between projects, groups within the depart 1 2 decrease the power held by professors 1 3 administrative problems, bureaucracy, flexibility 5 4 lack of permanent or temporary posts 0 5 problems of post-graduate education 2 6 co-operation with other departments 0 7 other 3 8 not relevant 47 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 157 [c15a] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Correspondence (with how many persons) How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Correspondence (with how many persons) 216 1 5 2.39 1.423 1 0 84 2 1.helmi 42 3 3.touko 40 4 6.loka 21 5 over 10 29 SYSMISS 1 [c15b] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Telephone (how many calls) How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Telephone (how many calls) 216 1 5 2.29 1.577 1 0 113 2 1.helmi 22 3 3.touko 23 4 6.loka 21 5 over 10 37 SYSMISS 1 [c15c] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Other electronic communication (telex, fax etc) (with how many colleagues) How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Other electronic communication (telex, fax etc) (with how many colleagues) 216 1 5 2.13 1.407 1 0 109 2 1.helmi 36 3 3.touko 33 4 6.loka 11 5 over 10 27 SYSMISS 1 [c15d] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Requests of offprints from abroad (how many times) How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Requests of offprints from abroad (how many times) 216 1 5 2.41 1.760 1 0 121 2 1.helmi 14 3 3.touko 11 4 6.loka 12 5 over 10 58 SYSMISS 1 [c15e] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Scientific visitors from abroad with whom were in active contact (number of persons) How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Scientific visitors from abroad with whom were in active contact (number of persons) 216 1 5 2.15 1.173 1 0 78 2 1.helmi 68 3 3.touko 44 4 6.loka 11 5 over 10 15 SYSMISS 1 [c15f] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Own scientific visits abroad, including attending meetings (number of visits) How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Own scientific visits abroad, including attending meetings (number of visits) 216 1 5 1.88 1.011 1 0 100 2 1.helmi 64 3 3.touko 35 4 6.loka 13 5 over 10 4 SYSMISS 1 [c15g] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Preparing/giving joint presentations in meetings (number of presentations) How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Preparing/giving joint presentations in meetings (number of presentations) 216 1 5 1.42 .755 1 0 153 2 1.helmi 41 3 3.touko 17 4 6.loka 4 5 over 10 1 SYSMISS 1 [c15h] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Producing joint publications (number of publications) How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Producing joint publications (number of publications) 216 1 5 1.48 .818 1 0 146 2 1.helmi 47 3 3.touko 15 4 6.loka 6 5 over 10 2 SYSMISS 1 [c15i] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Other joint scientific/technical products, please specify How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Other joint scientific/technical products, please specify 217 1 5 1.05 .350 1 0 211 2 1.helmi 3 3 3.touko 2 4 6.loka 0 5 over 10 1 [c15j] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Joint projects How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Joint projects 216 1 5 1.29 .655 1 0 172 2 1.helmi 31 3 3.touko 9 4 6.loka 3 5 over 10 1 SYSMISS 1 [c15k] How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Other joint activities How often have you communicated in the following manner with foreign colleagues during the past year: Other joint activities 217 1 4 1.12 .417 1 0 196 2 1.helmi 16 3 3.touko 4 4 6.loka 1 5 over 10 0 [c16a] In your case, what are the biggest obstacles to international contacts (first mention)? In your case, what are the biggest obstacles to international contacts (first mention)? 217 0 9 3.26 2.750 0 there are no obstacles 22 1 funds, travel allowance 63 2 time 28 3 lack of interest, energy or enthusiasm 24 4 lack of contacts 17 5 lack of experience 9 6 others take care of contacts (e.g. superiors) 6 7 no need for international contacts 20 8 other obstacles 24 9 can't say, NA 4 [c16b] In your case, what are the biggest obstacles to international contacts (second mention)? In your case, what are the biggest obstacles to international contacts (second mention)? 217 1 9 7.61 2.677 0 there are no obstacles 0 1 funds, travel allowance 19 2 time 5 3 lack of interest, energy or enthusiasm 7 4 lack of contacts 6 5 lack of experience 4 6 others take care of contacts (e.g. superiors) 1 7 no need for international contacts 4 8 other obstacles 16 9 can't say, NA 155 [c16c] In your case, what are the biggest obstacles to international contacts (third mention)? In your case, what are the biggest obstacles to international contacts (third mention)? 217 1 9 8.75 1.177 0 there are no obstacles 0 1 funds, travel allowance 2 2 time 2 3 lack of interest, energy or enthusiasm 1 4 lack of contacts 1 5 lack of experience 0 6 others take care of contacts (e.g. superiors) 1 7 no need for international contacts 3 8 other obstacles 5 9 can't say, NA 202 [c17a] Have you been prevented from attending any international meeting by being refused/not getting a travel grant? Have you been prevented from attending any international meeting by being refused/not getting a travel grant? 47 1 2 1.79 .414 1 yes 10 2 no 37 SYSMISS 170 [c17b] If you have been prevented from attending an international meeting by not getting a travel grant, how many times? If you have been prevented from attending an international meeting by not getting a travel grant, how many times? 47 1 8 6.70 2.553 1 4 2 3 3 3 8 not applicable/relevant 37 SYSMISS 170 [c18a] Name three countries which are influential and at the forefront as far as your research area is concerned (first mention) Name three countries which are influential and at the forefront as far as your research area is concerned (first mention) 217 1 9 2.58 1.591 1 Scandinavia 28 2 USA 123 3 other Western European countries 41 4 Soviet Union 0 5 other Eastern European countries 2 6 other non-European countries 18 9 can't say, NA 5 [c18b] Name three countries which are influential and at the forefront as far as your research area is concerned (second mention) Name three countries which are influential and at the forefront as far as your research area is concerned (second mention) 217 1 9 3.28 1.828 1 Scandinavia 30 2 USA 31 3 other Western European countries 111 4 Soviet Union 3 5 other Eastern European countries 2 6 other non-European countries 32 9 can't say, NA 8 [c18c] Name three countries which are influential and at the forefront as far as your research area is concerned (third mention) Name three countries which are influential and at the forefront as far as your research area is concerned (third mention) 217 1 9 3.72 2.487 1 Scandinavia 38 2 USA 30 3 other Western European countries 83 4 Soviet Union 8 5 other Eastern European countries 4 6 other non-European countries 26 9 can't say, NA 28 [d20] The most recent paper/report sent by you to be published in a journal, book or other publication, including the university's own series, was: The most recent paper/report sent by you to be published in a journal, book or other publication, including the university's own series, was: 177 1 9 1.59 1.572 1 joint publication 122 2 sole publication 48 9 can't say 7 SYSMISS 40 [d21] Who chose the publication medium for this paper/report (publication channel)? Who chose the publication medium for this paper/report (publication channel)? 217 1 9 5.01 3.354 1 the author by himself 30 2 the author along with joint authors 55 3 other authors 25 4 publication requested, for conference 14 8 not a joint publication 21 9 other possible answers / NA 72 [d22a] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Speed of publication process in that series Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Speed of publication process in that series 217 0 9 3.27 3.643 0 not important 53 1 slightly important 52 2 important 38 3 very important 14 9 can't say, NA 60 [d22b] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: The series is esteemed and visible Criteria for choosing the publication channel: The series is esteemed and visible 217 0 9 3.98 3.180 0 not important 15 1 slightly important 18 2 important 61 3 very important 64 9 can't say, NA 59 [d22c] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: The series attracts those readers whom I would like to read my article/paper Criteria for choosing the publication channel: The series attracts those readers whom I would like to read my article/paper 217 0 9 4.01 3.151 0 not important 12 1 slightly important 17 2 important 65 3 very important 64 9 can't say, NA 59 [d22d] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Articles/papers of my own research area have been published in the series previously Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Articles/papers of my own research area have been published in the series previously 217 0 9 3.55 3.471 0 not important 41 1 slightly important 31 2 important 50 3 very important 36 9 can't say, NA 59 [d22e] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Review of my article/paper will be objective and competent Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Review of my article/paper will be objective and competent 217 0 9 3.59 3.540 0 not important 36 1 slightly important 45 2 important 46 3 very important 28 9 can't say, NA 62 [d22f] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: It is important for my career to publish in this series Criteria for choosing the publication channel: It is important for my career to publish in this series 217 0 9 3.40 3.535 0 not important 40 1 slightly important 51 2 important 46 3 very important 21 9 can't say, NA 59 [d22g] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: There is a strong probability that my work will be published Criteria for choosing the publication channel: There is a strong probability that my work will be published 217 0 9 3.32 3.609 0 not important 49 1 slightly important 46 2 important 51 3 very important 11 9 can't say, NA 60 [d22h] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: No significant costs are involved, e.g. in the form of page charge Criteria for choosing the publication channel: No significant costs are involved, e.g. in the form of page charge 217 0 9 2.93 3.797 0 not important 90 1 slightly important 41 2 important 17 3 very important 10 9 can't say, NA 59 [d22i] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Publication process probably does not demand noticeable changes in the text Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Publication process probably does not demand noticeable changes in the text 217 0 9 2.88 3.804 0 not important 85 1 slightly important 57 2 important 12 3 very important 4 9 can't say, NA 59 [d22j] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Personal contacts with a member/members of the editorial committee Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Personal contacts with a member/members of the editorial committee 217 0 9 2.84 3.841 0 not important 104 1 slightly important 28 2 important 21 3 very important 5 9 can't say, NA 59 [d22k] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: I'm a member of the editorial committee in this series or other influence Criteria for choosing the publication channel: I'm a member of the editorial committee in this series or other influence 217 0 9 2.59 3.992 0 not important 142 1 slightly important 9 2 important 4 3 very important 2 9 can't say, NA 60 [d22l] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Article/paper requested Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Article/paper requested 217 0 9 7.53 3.096 0 not important 19 1 slightly important 5 2 important 5 3 very important 12 9 can't say, NA 176 [d22m] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Have a habit of publishing in this series Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Have a habit of publishing in this series 217 0 9 7.49 3.173 0 not important 18 1 slightly important 10 2 important 8 3 very important 5 9 can't say, NA 176 [d22n] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Conference publication Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Conference publication 217 0 9 7.40 3.360 0 not important 31 1 slightly important 4 2 important 1 3 very important 5 9 can't say, NA 176 [d22o] Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Other reasons Criteria for choosing the publication channel: Other reasons 217 0 9 7.79 2.942 0 not important 20 1 slightly important 2 2 important 6 3 very important 4 9 can't say, NA 185 [e24a] From the list, choose three factors that are taken into account when assessing research in your field (first factor) From the list, choose three factors that are taken into account when assessing research in your field (first factor) 217 0 99 2.82 11.541 0 scientific quality, validity and reliability 100 1 innovativeness and creativity of the research 28 2 usefulness of the research to the society 19 3 applicability of findings, relevance to potential users 30 4 productivity: number of publications, products etc. 31 5 research education and training, e.g. postgraduate educ 4 6 ability to keep within the agreed timeframe 0 7 ability to keep within the budget 1 8 adverse effects caused by the research results 0 9 ethical dimension of the research 1 99 NA 3 [e24b] From the list, choose three factors that are taken into account when assessing research in your field (second factor) From the list, choose three factors that are taken into account when assessing research in your field (second factor) 217 0 99 3.59 11.457 0 scientific quality, validity and reliability 38 1 innovativeness and creativity of the research 54 2 usefulness of the research to the society 24 3 applicability of findings, relevance to potential users 45 4 productivity: number of publications, products etc. 30 5 research education and training, e.g. postgraduate educ 18 6 ability to keep within the agreed timeframe 3 7 ability to keep within the budget 0 8 adverse effects caused by the research results 0 9 ethical dimension of the research 2 99 NA 3 [e24c] From the list, choose three factors that are taken into account when assessing research in your field (third factor) From the list, choose three factors that are taken into account when assessing research in your field (third factor) 217 0 99 5.71 15.901 0 scientific quality, validity and reliability 24 1 innovativeness and creativity of the research 40 2 usefulness of the research to the society 20 3 applicability of findings, relevance to potential users 36 4 productivity: number of publications, products etc. 39 5 research education and training, e.g. postgraduate educ 31 6 ability to keep within the agreed timeframe 10 7 ability to keep within the budget 6 8 adverse effects caused by the research results 1 9 ethical dimension of the research 4 99 NA 6 [e25] Do you accept the assessment criteria used to review research in your field? Do you accept the assessment criteria used to review research in your field? 217 1 9 1.93 1.550 1 no 79 2 yes 129 9 can't say, NA 9 [e26a] How would you like to change these assessment criteria (first mention)? How would you like to change these assessment criteria (first mention)? 217 1 9 6.00 2.926 1 quantitative/volume factors too dominant 44 2 place more value on innovativeness and personal input 5 3 objectivity and expertise should be increased 9 4 use international assessment more often 1 5 more emphasis on applicability and practical usefulness 8 6 other 16 8 not relevant 126 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 8 [e26b] How would you like to change these assessment criteria (second mention)? How would you like to change these assessment criteria (second mention)? 217 1 9 7.74 1.868 1 quantitative/volume factors too dominant 4 2 place more value on innovativeness and personal input 12 3 objectivity and expertise should be increased 1 4 use international assessment more often 0 5 more emphasis on applicability and practical usefulness 4 6 other 3 8 not relevant 126 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 67 [e26c] How would you like to change these assessment criteria (third mention)? How would you like to change these assessment criteria (third mention)? 217 4 9 8.31 .690 1 quantitative/volume factors too dominant 0 2 place more value on innovativeness and personal input 0 3 objectivity and expertise should be increased 0 4 use international assessment more often 1 5 more emphasis on applicability and practical usefulness 0 6 other 6 8 not relevant 126 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 84 [e27a] Has your research area been submitted to a special review by the Academy of Finland or any other body? Has your research area been submitted to a special review by the Academy of Finland or any other body? 217 1 9 2.54 2.430 1 yes 65 2 no 126 9 can't say, NA 26 [e27b] If the answer to the previous question is 'yes', which body was responsible for the review and which research area was assessed? If the answer to the previous question is 'yes', which body was responsible for the review and which research area was assessed? 170 1 9 6.20 2.881 1 cardiovascular research review by Academy of Finland 14 2 automation technology review by Academy of Finland (AF) 31 3 hydrobiology research review by Academy of Finland 3 4 ecotoxicology research review by Academy of Finland 3 5 other international review by Academy of Finland 2 8 not relevant 106 9 can't say, misunderstanding or a non-existent review 11 SYSMISS 47 [e27c] Year when the review was completed Year when the review was completed 170 0 99 90.64 19.630 0 review not completed yet 7 76 1 78 1 85 5 86 28 87 5 88 4 89 4 98 have not been reviewed 106 99 can't say 9 SYSMISS 47 [e27d] Was your own research project submitted to this review? Was your own research project submitted to this review? 217 1 9 6.12 3.034 1 yes 37 2 no 26 8 not relevant, my research area has not been reviewed 147 9 can't say, NA 7 [e28a] Did you find the above mentioned review competent and objective? Did you find the above mentioned review competent and objective? 217 1 9 6.60 2.893 1 yes 37 2 no 11 8 not relevant, my research area has not been reviewed 147 9 can't say, NA 22 [e28b1] If the answer is 'no', please specify the weaknesses/faults of the review (first mention) If the answer is 'no', please specify the weaknesses/faults of the review (first mention) 170 1 9 7.75 1.207 1 review was superficial 2 2 conducted with too tight a time schedule 1 3 not objective or reviewer had own aspirations 2 4 not competent 4 5 quantitative factors too dominant 0 6 other 1 8 not relevant 155 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 5 SYSMISS 47 [e28b2] If the answer is 'no', please specify the weaknesses/faults of the review (second mention) If the answer is 'no', please specify the weaknesses/faults of the review (second mention) 170 1 9 7.88 1.070 1 review was superficial 2 2 conducted with too tight a time schedule 2 3 not objective or reviewer had own aspirations 0 4 not competent 1 5 quantitative factors too dominant 0 6 other 0 8 not relevant 155 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 10 SYSMISS 47 [e28b3] If the answer is 'no', please specify the weaknesses/faults of the review (third mention) If the answer is 'no', please specify the weaknesses/faults of the review (third mention) 170 3 9 8.02 .565 1 review was superficial 0 2 conducted with too tight a time schedule 0 3 not objective or reviewer had own aspirations 1 4 not competent 1 5 quantitative factors too dominant 0 6 other 0 8 not relevant 155 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 13 SYSMISS 47 [e29a] Does this review have an effect on your own research work, resources, research content or other research environment? Does this review have an effect on your own research work, resources, research content or other research environment? 170 1 9 6.34 2.997 1 yes 24 2 no 22 8 not relevant, my research area has not been reviewed 106 9 can't say, NA 18 SYSMISS 47 [e29b1] The effects of the review on the research (first mention) The effects of the review on the research (first mention) 170 1 9 7.36 1.832 1 increased resources 6 2 long-term planning of the research is more clear-cut 3 3 impact on research strategies 5 4 encouraging impact, increases esteem 3 5 other positive impact 5 6 negative impact 2 8 have not been submitted to review 138 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 8 SYSMISS 47 [e29b2] The effects of the review on the research (second mention) The effects of the review on the research (second mention) 170 1 9 7.89 1.285 1 increased resources 4 2 long-term planning of the research is more clear-cut 0 3 impact on research strategies 1 4 encouraging impact, increases esteem 2 5 other positive impact 0 6 negative impact 1 8 have not been submitted to review 138 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 24 SYSMISS 47 [e29b3] The effects of the review on the research (third mention) The effects of the review on the research (third mention) 170 2 9 8.12 .655 1 increased resources 0 2 long-term planning of the research is more clear-cut 1 3 impact on research strategies 0 4 encouraging impact, increases esteem 0 5 other positive impact 1 6 negative impact 0 8 have not been submitted to review 138 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 30 SYSMISS 47 [e30a] If you have followed closely any other special review, do you think the review had an effect? If you have followed closely any other special review, do you think the review had an effect? 217 1 9 5.60 3.270 1 yes 34 2 no 24 3 have not followed 39 8 not relevant, have not been submitted to review 64 9 can't say, NA 56 [e30b1] The effects of the review you followed (first mention) The effects of the review you followed (first mention) 217 1 9 7.49 1.751 1 impact on funding and allocation of funding 9 2 encouragement, increased esteem, increased motivation 2 3 provoked discussion within the field or department 5 4 impact on research strategies 3 5 negative impact (anger, anxiety) 1 6 no effect or only slight effect 2 7 other 4 8 not relevant 179 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 12 [e30b2] The effects of the review you followed (second mention) The effects of the review you followed (second mention) 217 1 9 7.88 1.326 1 impact on funding and allocation of funding 5 2 encouragement, increased esteem, increased motivation 3 3 provoked discussion within the field or department 0 4 impact on research strategies 0 5 negative impact (anger, anxiety) 0 6 no effect or only slight effect 0 7 other 2 8 not relevant 179 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 28 [e31] Do you think special reviews of different research areas or research institutes should be made more or less often? Do you think special reviews of different research areas or research institutes should be made more or less often? 217 1 9 2.86 2.986 1 more often 107 2 about the same amount as now 59 3 less often 8 4 never 3 9 can't say, NA 40 [e32a1] Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the advantages (first mention)? Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the advantages (first mention)? 217 0 9 4.09 2.939 0 co-ordination of research area, help avoid duplication 36 1 comparison between domestic and foreign research 16 2 recognition and support, make the field known 15 3 objective assessment by outsiders 39 4 improve the quality of the research 14 5 rethinking of research strategies, reorientation 28 6 have a positive impact on resources and funding 15 7 indicate the weaknesses and problems of research 17 8 other 13 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 24 [e32a2] Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the advantages (second mention)? Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the advantages (second mention)? 217 0 9 7.42 2.648 0 co-ordination of research area, help avoid duplication 7 1 comparison between domestic and foreign research 8 2 recognition and support, make the field known 6 3 objective assessment by outsiders 5 4 improve the quality of the research 6 5 rethinking of research strategies, reorientation 11 6 have a positive impact on resources and funding 16 7 indicate the weaknesses and problems of research 6 8 other 10 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 142 [e32a3] Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the advantages (third mention)? Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the advantages (third mention)? 217 0 9 8.55 1.699 0 co-ordination of research area, help avoid duplication 5 1 comparison between domestic and foreign research 1 2 recognition and support, make the field known 0 3 objective assessment by outsiders 3 4 improve the quality of the research 0 5 rethinking of research strategies, reorientation 4 6 have a positive impact on resources and funding 2 7 indicate the weaknesses and problems of research 2 8 other 0 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 200 [e32b1] Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the disadvantages (first mention)? Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the disadvantages (first mention)? 217 0 9 4.71 3.535 0 waste of time and money 11 1 methodical issues involved in assessments 69 2 conflicts, anxiety, problems in interpersonal relations 16 3 excessive competition 3 4 reviews misused to promote own interests 6 5 loss of reputation or fear thereof 12 6 impact on the distribution of resources 8 7 inhibit the freedom and diversity of research 20 8 other 9 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 63 [e32b2] Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the disadvantages (second mention)? Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the disadvantages (second mention)? 217 0 9 8.06 2.349 0 waste of time and money 5 1 methodical issues involved in assessments 9 2 conflicts, anxiety, problems in interpersonal relations 3 3 excessive competition 2 4 reviews misused to promote own interests 3 5 loss of reputation or fear thereof 1 6 impact on the distribution of resources 8 7 inhibit the freedom and diversity of research 5 8 other 1 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 180 [e32b3] Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the disadvantages (third mention)? Are assessments of this kind advantageous or disadvantageous to scientific and research communities? What are the disadvantages (third mention)? 217 1 9 8.87 .919 0 waste of time and money 0 1 methodical issues involved in assessments 1 2 conflicts, anxiety, problems in interpersonal relations 1 3 excessive competition 2 4 reviews misused to promote own interests 0 5 loss of reputation or fear thereof 0 6 impact on the distribution of resources 0 7 inhibit the freedom and diversity of research 0 8 other 1 9 can't say, NA, no second or third mention 212 [f33] How would you place the subject area of your main research project on the scale: New subject ares = 5, traditional subject area = 1 How would you place the subject area of your main research project on the scale: New subject ares = 5, traditional subject area = 1 217 1 9 3.81 1.624 1 traditional subject area 13 2 mainly traditional 26 3 hard to say 44 4 mainly new 85 5 new subject area 38 9 can't say, NA 11 [f34] How would you place your project on the scale: Single-discipline research = 5, interdisciplinary research = 1 How would you place your project on the scale: Single-discipline research = 5, interdisciplinary research = 1 217 1 9 3.15 1.946 1 interdisciplinary 50 2 mainly interdisciplinary 42 3 hard to say 43 4 mainly single-discipline 33 5 single-discipline 38 9 can't say, NA 11 [kesto] Duration of the project in years Duration of the project in years 122 0 20 3.56 2.898 [optkesto] Optimal duration of the project (in years) Optimal duration of the project (in years) 128 0 21 4.48 3.781 [f36a] If it is team research, how many members there are in the team? If it is team research, how many members there are in the team? 217 0 9 1.76 2.110 0 lone researcher 69 1 2-3 members 46 2 4-5 members 53 3 6-10 members 30 4 11-15 members 5 5 16-20 members 0 6 21-30 members 1 7 31-50 members 1 8 more than 50 members 2 9 can't say, NA 10 [f36b1] Are the other project team members all from your department or also from elsewhere, from where (university and department)? Are the other project team members all from your department or also from elsewhere, from where (university and department)? 217 0 9 4.03 3.544 0 from my department 64 1 other department in the same university 12 2 another Finnish university 17 3 Finnish research institute, incl. industrial research units 27 4 Scandinavia 4 5 elsewhere in Europe 8 6 USA 1 7 rest of the world 2 8 not relevant 66 9 can't say, NA 16 [f36b2] Are the other project team members all from your department or also from elsewhere, from where (university and department)? Are the other project team members all from your department or also from elsewhere, from where (university and department)? 217 0 9 7.66 2.416 0 from my department 1 1 other department in the same university 2 2 another Finnish university 17 3 Finnish research institute, incl. industrial research units 11 4 Scandinavia 3 5 elsewhere in Europe 5 6 USA 1 7 rest of the world 2 8 not relevant 38 9 can't say, NA 137 [f36b3] Are the other project team members all from your department or also from elsewhere, from where (university and department)? Are the other project team members all from your department or also from elsewhere, from where (university and department)? 217 0 9 8.42 1.457 0 from my department 1 1 other department in the same university 1 2 another Finnish university 2 3 Finnish research institute, incl. industrial research units 2 4 Scandinavia 2 5 elsewhere in Europe 7 6 USA 1 7 rest of the world 2 8 not relevant 38 9 can't say, NA 161 [f37] Are you involved in other research projects? If 'yes', how many? Are you involved in other research projects? If 'yes', how many? 217 0 9 1.06 1.798 0 no other projects 120 1 1 other project 46 2 2 other projects 20 3 3 other projects 14 4 4-5 other projects 6 5 6-10 other projects 5 6 11-15 other projects 0 7 16-20 other projects 0 8 21-30 other projects 1 9 NA 5 [f38a] The number of other research teams in Finland The number of other research teams in Finland 217 0 9 2.24 2.474 0 none 59 1 1 team 28 2 2-5 teams 72 3 6-10 teams 22 4 11-30 teams 7 5 over 30 teams 10 9 NA, can't say, many 19 [f38b] The number of other research teams abroad The number of other research teams abroad 217 0 9 5.18 2.560 0 none 8 1 1 team 3 2 2-5 teams 24 3 6-10 teams 20 4 11-30 teams 14 5 over 30 teams 94 9 NA, can't say, many 54 [f39a] The location of the most important research teams in Finland (team A) The location of the most important research teams in Finland (team A) 217 0 9 4.24 3.112 0 same department 8 1 other department but same university 21 2 other Finnish university 82 3 Finnish research institute, incl. industrial research units 26 8 not relevant 63 9 NA, can't say 17 [f39b] The location of the most important research teams in Finland (team B) The location of the most important research teams in Finland (team B) 217 0 9 5.29 3.164 0 same department 6 1 other department but same university 15 2 other Finnish university 51 3 Finnish research institute, incl. industrial research units 31 8 not relevant 88 9 NA, can't say 26 [f39c] The location of the most important research teams in Finland (team C) The location of the most important research teams in Finland (team C) 217 0 9 6.65 2.673 0 same department 2 1 other department but same university 4 2 other Finnish university 30 3 Finnish research institute, incl. industrial research units 20 8 not relevant 129 9 NA, can't say 32 [f39ss] How many teams from Finland mentioned altogether? How many teams from Finland mentioned altogether? 217 1 9 4.39 3.007 1 34 2 48 3 55 8 not relevant 63 9 NA, can't say 17 [f39d] The location of the most important research teams abroad (team D) The location of the most important research teams abroad (team D) 217 4 9 6.35 1.633 4 Scandinavia 29 5 elsewhere in Europe 47 6 USA 57 7 rest of the world 17 8 not relevant 36 9 NA, can't say 31 [f39e] The location of the most important research teams abroad (team E) The location of the most important research teams abroad (team E) 217 4 9 6.71 1.582 4 Scandinavia 10 5 elsewhere in Europe 59 6 USA 40 7 rest of the world 15 8 not relevant 60 9 NA, can't say 33 [f39f] The location of the most important research teams abroad (team F) The location of the most important research teams abroad (team F) 217 4 9 7.04 1.557 4 Scandinavia 7 5 elsewhere in Europe 49 6 USA 31 7 rest of the world 10 8 not relevant 82 9 NA, can't say 38 [f39su] How many teams from abroad mentioned altogether? How many teams from abroad mentioned altogether? 217 1 9 4.32 2.859 1 25 2 29 3 96 8 not relevant 36 9 NA, can't say 31 [f40sa] In how many different ways has been in contact with team A? In how many different ways has been in contact with team A? 217 0 8 4.58 3.022 0 16 1 32 2 26 3 23 4 18 5 10 6 9 8 not relevant 83 [f40sb] In how many different ways has been in contact with team B? In how many different ways has been in contact with team B? 217 0 8 5.43 3.056 0 10 1 32 2 18 3 13 4 11 5 7 6 8 8 not relevant 118 [f40sc] In how many different ways has been in contact with team C? In how many different ways has been in contact with team C? 217 0 8 6.56 2.608 0 9 1 7 2 17 3 10 4 6 5 4 6 2 8 not relevant 162 [f40sd] In how many different ways has been in contact with team D? In how many different ways has been in contact with team D? 217 0 8 3.85 3.173 0 37 1 32 2 33 3 20 4 12 5 8 6 5 8 not relevant 70 [f40se] In how many different ways has been in contact with team E? In how many different ways has been in contact with team E? 217 0 8 4.45 3.348 0 38 1 25 2 25 3 15 4 9 5 6 6 6 8 not relevant 93 [f40sf] In how many different ways has been in contact with team F? In how many different ways has been in contact with team F? 217 0 8 5.26 3.383 0 31 1 27 2 11 3 10 4 6 5 5 6 1 8 not relevant 126 [f40da1] Correspondence with team A Correspondence with team A 217 0 9 3.35 3.789 0 no 84 1 yes 49 8 this team not mentioned 77 9 can't say, NA 7 [f40da2] Occasional visits with team A Occasional visits with team A 217 0 9 3.51 3.666 0 no 50 1 yes 83 8 this team not mentioned 77 9 can't say, NA 7 [f40da3] Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team A Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team A 217 0 9 3.47 3.703 0 no 60 1 yes 73 8 this team not mentioned 77 9 can't say, NA 7 [f40da4] Joint publications with team A Joint publications with team A 217 0 9 3.26 3.861 0 no 105 1 yes 28 8 this team not mentioned 77 9 can't say, NA 7 [f40da5] Research co-operation with team A Research co-operation with team A 217 0 9 3.41 3.751 0 no 73 1 yes 60 8 this team not mentioned 77 9 can't say, NA 7 [f40da6] Education co-operation with team A Education co-operation with team A 217 0 9 3.29 3.841 0 no 99 1 yes 34 8 this team not mentioned 77 9 can't say, NA 7 [f40db1] Correspondence with team B Correspondence with team B 217 0 9 4.56 3.855 0 no 61 1 yes 38 8 this team not mentioned 110 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40db2] Occasional visits with team B Occasional visits with team B 217 0 9 4.64 3.775 0 no 45 1 yes 54 8 this team not mentioned 110 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40db3] Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team B Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team B 217 0 9 4.62 3.790 0 no 48 1 yes 51 8 this team not mentioned 110 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40db4] Joint publications with team B Joint publications with team B 217 0 9 4.50 3.922 0 no 75 1 yes 24 8 this team not mentioned 110 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40db5] Research co-operation with team B Research co-operation with team B 217 0 9 4.59 3.830 0 no 56 1 yes 43 8 this team not mentioned 110 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40db6] Education co-operation with team B Education co-operation with team B 217 0 9 4.50 3.922 0 no 75 1 yes 24 8 this team not mentioned 110 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40dc1] Correspondence with team C Correspondence with team C 217 0 9 6.09 3.355 0 no 35 1 yes 20 8 this team not mentioned 157 9 can't say, NA 5 [f40dc2] Occasional visits with team C Occasional visits with team C 217 0 9 6.14 3.261 0 no 23 1 yes 32 8 this team not mentioned 157 9 can't say, NA 5 [f40dc3] Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team C Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team C 217 0 9 6.12 3.293 0 no 27 1 yes 28 8 this team not mentioned 157 9 can't say, NA 5 [f40dc4] Joint publications with team C Joint publications with team C 217 0 9 6.05 3.423 0 no 44 1 yes 11 8 this team not mentioned 157 9 can't say, NA 5 [f40dc5] Research co-operation with team C Research co-operation with team C 217 0 9 6.10 3.332 0 no 32 1 yes 23 8 this team not mentioned 157 9 can't say, NA 5 [f40dc6] Education co-operation with team C Education co-operation with team C 217 0 9 6.02 3.430 0 no 43 1 yes 13 8 this team not mentioned 156 9 can't say, NA 5 [f40dd1] Correspondence with team D Correspondence with team D 217 0 9 2.82 3.581 0 no 83 1 yes 67 8 this team not mentioned 59 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40dd2] Occasional visits with team D Occasional visits with team D 217 0 9 2.80 3.593 0 no 87 1 yes 63 8 this team not mentioned 59 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40dd3] Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team D Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team D 217 0 9 2.82 3.581 0 no 83 1 yes 67 8 this team not mentioned 59 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40dd4] Joint publications with team D Joint publications with team D 217 0 9 2.62 3.700 0 no 125 1 yes 25 8 this team not mentioned 59 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40dd5] Research co-operation with team D Research co-operation with team D 217 0 9 2.69 3.659 0 no 110 1 yes 40 8 this team not mentioned 59 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40dd6] Education co-operation with team D Education co-operation with team D 217 0 9 2.58 3.726 0 no 135 1 yes 15 8 this team not mentioned 59 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40de1] Correspondence with team E Correspondence with team E 217 0 9 3.72 3.814 0 no 69 1 yes 55 8 this team not mentioned 85 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40de2] Occasional visits with team E Occasional visits with team E 217 0 9 3.70 3.829 0 no 73 1 yes 51 8 this team not mentioned 85 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40de3] Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team E Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team E 217 0 9 3.70 3.833 0 no 74 1 yes 50 8 this team not mentioned 85 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40de4] Joint publications with team E Joint publications with team E 217 0 9 3.55 3.949 0 no 105 1 yes 19 8 this team not mentioned 85 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40de5] Research co-operation with team E Research co-operation with team E 217 0 9 3.59 3.920 0 no 97 1 yes 27 8 this team not mentioned 85 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40de6] Education co-operation with team E Education co-operation with team E 217 0 9 3.53 3.963 0 no 109 1 yes 15 8 this team not mentioned 85 9 can't say, NA 8 [f40df1] Correspondence with team F Correspondence with team F 217 0 9 4.82 3.852 0 no 59 1 yes 33 8 this team not mentioned 113 9 can't say, NA 12 [f40df2] Occasional visits with team F Occasional visits with team F 217 0 9 4.79 3.878 0 no 64 1 yes 28 8 this team not mentioned 113 9 can't say, NA 12 [f40df3] Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team F Exchange of written information (publications, offprints etc) with team F 217 0 9 4.84 3.826 0 no 54 1 yes 38 8 this team not mentioned 113 9 can't say, NA 12 [f40df4] Joint publications with team F Joint publications with team F 217 0 9 4.71 3.963 0 no 81 1 yes 11 8 this team not mentioned 113 9 can't say, NA 12 [f40df5] Research co-operation with team F Research co-operation with team F 217 0 9 4.72 3.953 0 no 79 1 yes 13 8 this team not mentioned 113 9 can't say, NA 12 [f40df6] Education co-operation with team F Education co-operation with team F 217 0 9 4.70 3.983 0 no 85 1 yes 7 8 this team not mentioned 113 9 can't say, NA 12 [f42] In addition to those teams with whom you are already in contact, would you like co-operate with yet other teams? In addition to those teams with whom you are already in contact, would you like co-operate with yet other teams? 217 1 9 2.01 2.216 1 yes 130 2 no 68 9 can't say, NA 19 [f43a] What prevents the co-operation/contacts (first reason)? What prevents the co-operation/contacts (first reason)? 217 0 9 5.20 3.234 0 funding, problems with resources 23 1 time, family reasons 30 2 own passivity, laziness, shyness 9 3 competition between teams, economic interests 15 4 one-sidedness of interest, top teams not interested 6 5 own team not far enough, not yet the right time for it 18 6 not enough information about other teams 7 7 other 11 8 not relevant 79 9 no particular obstacles, can't say, NA 19 [f43b] What prevents the co-operation/contacts (second reason)? What prevents the co-operation/contacts (second reason)? 217 0 9 7.92 2.508 0 funding, problems with resources 9 1 time, family reasons 8 2 own passivity, laziness, shyness 4 3 competition between teams, economic interests 1 4 one-sidedness of interest, top teams not interested 1 5 own team not far enough, not yet the right time for it 3 6 not enough information about other teams 3 7 other 5 8 not relevant 20 9 no particular obstacles, can't say, NA 163 [f44] Which of the following research and development types describes your present research best? Which of the following research and development types describes your present research best? 217 1 9 1.81 1.584 1 basic research 125 2 applied research 60 3 experimental development research 21 4 other 3 8 not relevant 0 9 can't say, NA 8 [f44v40] Which of the following research and development types describes your present research best? Which of the following research and development types describes your present research best? 170 1 9 7.46 1.827 1 basic research 7 2 applied research 6 3 experimental development research 2 4 other 0 8 not relevant 151 9 can't say, NA 4 SYSMISS 47 [f45] How would you characterize your research? Is it: How would you characterize your research? Is it: 217 0 9 3.03 2.321 0 mainly theoretical 21 1 mainly experimental (empirical) 66 2 mainly methodological 14 3 theoretical and experimental 35 4 theoretical and methodological 12 5 experimental and methodological 25 6 theoretical, experimental and methodological 37 9 can't say 7 [f46] Thinking of the application potential (applicability) of your main research project, would you say that: Thinking of the application potential (applicability) of your main research project, would you say that: 217 0 9 3.10 1.825 0 results have no practical applications 10 1 practical applications not clear yet 30 2 application problems not solved yet 34 3 results have no applications now but will have later 63 4 some results have practical applications 54 5 results have widely used practical applications 16 9 can't say, NA 10 [f47] How would you define the application level of your main research results in the scientific sense, with the help of examples displayed in the card How would you define the application level of your main research results in the scientific sense, with the help of examples displayed in the card 216 1 9 3.58 2.131 1 specific problem 29 2 problem area 44 3 research area 52 4 specialist subject area 40 5 research field 19 6 discipline 14 9 can't say, NA 18 SYSMISS 1 [f48a] How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: Largely standardised research methods, procedures and subjects How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: Largely standardised research methods, procedures and subjects 217 1 9 2.63 1.419 1 does not correspond at all with the present state 51 2 corresponds only slightly 63 3 description valid to some extent 46 4 a valid description 42 5 a very valid description 12 9 can't say 3 [f48b] How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: The field is theoretically integrated and coordinated How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: The field is theoretically integrated and coordinated 217 1 9 2.76 1.679 1 does not correspond at all with the present state 40 2 corresponds only slightly 72 3 description valid to some extent 58 4 a valid description 29 5 a very valid description 9 9 can't say 9 [f48c] How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: The field embraces a multitude of research objectives, concepts and approaches How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: The field embraces a multitude of research objectives, concepts and approaches 217 1 9 3.74 1.273 1 does not correspond at all with the present state 7 2 corresponds only slightly 31 3 description valid to some extent 46 4 a valid description 73 5 a very valid description 57 9 can't say 3 [f48d] How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: The field has been fragmented into many subfields/specialities How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: The field has been fragmented into many subfields/specialities 217 1 9 3.76 1.280 1 does not correspond at all with the present state 9 2 corresponds only slightly 19 3 description valid to some extent 59 4 a valid description 75 5 a very valid description 51 9 can't say 4 [f48e] How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: Rigorous division of work in research tasks and and expertise How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: Rigorous division of work in research tasks and and expertise 217 1 9 2.28 1.388 1 does not correspond at all with the present state 66 2 corresponds only slightly 80 3 description valid to some extent 39 4 a valid description 24 5 a very valid description 4 9 can't say 4 [f48f] How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: The field is divided into different schools of thought and research practices How would you describe the present state of your own research area in terms of following characterizations: The field is divided into different schools of thought and research practices 217 1 9 2.92 1.462 1 does not correspond at all with the present state 36 2 corresponds only slightly 47 3 description valid to some extent 67 4 a valid description 52 5 a very valid description 10 9 can't say 5 [f48g] Researchers of this field have profound scientific disagreements over a great number of issues Researchers of this field have profound scientific disagreements over a great number of issues 217 1 9 2.68 1.557 1 does not correspond at all with the present state 45 2 corresponds only slightly 73 3 description valid to some extent 46 4 a valid description 37 5 a very valid description 10 9 can't say 6 [f49a] In your opinion, what would be the most important characteristics of high quality research in your area (first mention)? In your opinion, what would be the most important characteristics of high quality research in your area (first mention)? 217 0 9 4.13 2.355 0 validity, objectivity 7 1 sound and well-defined research design 27 2 methodology: reliability, stability 42 3 hi quality on theoretical level, scientifically significant 22 4 high quality in international comparison 2 5 innovativeness, originality, creativity 57 6 versatility, diversity 7 7 utility to practice, applicability 42 8 other 9 9 can't say, NA 2 [f49b] In your opinion, what would be the most important characteristics of high quality research in your area (second mention)? In your opinion, what would be the most important characteristics of high quality research in your area (second mention)? 217 0 9 5.44 2.767 0 validity, objectivity 4 1 sound and well-defined research design 10 2 methodology: reliability, stability 37 3 hi quality on theoretical level, scientifically significant 23 4 high quality in international comparison 3 5 innovativeness, originality, creativity 28 6 versatility, diversity 11 7 utility to practice, applicability 40 8 other 20 9 can't say, NA 41 [f49c] In your opinion, what would be the most important characteristics of high quality research in your area (third mention)? In your opinion, what would be the most important characteristics of high quality research in your area (third mention)? 217 0 9 7.48 2.404 0 validity, objectivity 4 1 sound and well-defined research design 5 2 methodology: reliability, stability 8 3 hi quality on theoretical level, scientifically significant 9 4 high quality in international comparison 1 5 innovativeness, originality, creativity 9 6 versatility, diversity 13 7 utility to practice, applicability 19 8 other 25 9 can't say, NA 124 [f50a] Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: Validity (truthfulness, objectivity, accuracy) Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: Validity (truthfulness, objectivity, accuracy) 217 1 9 3.89 .777 1 not at all important or not relevant 2 2 not very important 4 3 important 24 4 very important 184 9 can't say, NA 3 [f50b] Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: Innovativeness (originality, creativity, pioneer spirit) Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: Innovativeness (originality, creativity, pioneer spirit) 217 2 9 3.37 .760 1 not at all important or not relevant 0 2 not very important 22 3 important 97 4 very important 97 9 can't say, NA 1 [f50c] Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: 'Simplicity' (clarity, presentation method, elegance) Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: 'Simplicity' (clarity, presentation method, elegance) 217 1 9 2.94 .861 1 not at all important or not relevant 6 2 not very important 54 3 important 109 4 very important 47 9 can't say, NA 1 [f50d] Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: Contribution to the research (scientific progress, advancement of scientific knowledge, theory and methodology) Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: Contribution to the research (scientific progress, advancement of scientific knowledge, theory and methodology) 217 1 9 3.25 .802 1 not at all important or not relevant 1 2 not very important 31 3 important 102 4 very important 82 9 can't say, NA 1 [f50e] Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: Contribution beyond the research area (utility to practice, significance to society) Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: Contribution beyond the research area (utility to practice, significance to society) 217 1 9 3.00 .995 1 not at all important or not relevant 13 2 not very important 53 3 important 77 4 very important 73 9 can't say, NA 1 [f50f] Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: Productivity (a great volume of publication output, quantity) Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: Productivity (a great volume of publication output, quantity) 217 1 9 2.12 .898 1 not at all important or not relevant 43 2 not very important 124 3 important 37 4 very important 12 9 can't say, NA 1 [f50g] Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: International visibility (international publications, international reputation, contacts abroad) Rate the relative importance of each characteristics in your own research field: International visibility (international publications, international reputation, contacts abroad) 217 1 9 3.18 1.084 1 not at all important or not relevant 2 2 not very important 45 3 important 102 4 very important 64 9 can't say, NA 4 [f51a] In your opinion, what should be the most important criteria of scientific success in your research area (first mention) In your opinion, what should be the most important criteria of scientific success in your research area (first mention) 217 0 13 6.65 3.695 0 research objectives are attained 3 1 objectivity, thoroughness, validity of findings etc 14 2 contribution to the research field and theory 16 3 quality in general, quality of research 39 4 publication output, number of publications 13 5 quality of publications, quality of their content 9 6 publication channel, publications in esteemed journals 3 7 esteem of international scient. community, int. publications 13 8 summarization of results in postgraduate research 4 9 innovativeness, originality, creativity 37 10 practical, economical and societal utility 43 11 not (merely) the volume of publications or citations 5 12 other 11 13 can't say, NA 7 [f51b] In your opinion, what should be the most important criteria of scientific success in your research area (second mention) In your opinion, what should be the most important criteria of scientific success in your research area (second mention) 217 0 13 10.74 3.822 0 research objectives are attained 3 1 objectivity, thoroughness, validity of findings etc 8 2 contribution to the research field and theory 8 3 quality in general, quality of research 3 4 publication output, number of publications 7 5 quality of publications, quality of their content 3 6 publication channel, publications in esteemed journals 0 7 esteem of international scient. community, int. publications 5 8 summarization of results in postgraduate research 0 9 innovativeness, originality, creativity 13 10 practical, economical and societal utility 19 11 not (merely) the volume of publications or citations 5 12 other 2 13 can't say, NA 141 [f51c] In your opinion, what should be the most important criteria of scientific success in your research area (third mention) In your opinion, what should be the most important criteria of scientific success in your research area (third mention) 217 1 13 12.50 1.977 0 research objectives are attained 0 1 objectivity, thoroughness, validity of findings etc 1 2 contribution to the research field and theory 4 3 quality in general, quality of research 0 4 publication output, number of publications 1 5 quality of publications, quality of their content 0 6 publication channel, publications in esteemed journals 1 7 esteem of international scient. community, int. publications 1 8 summarization of results in postgraduate research 0 9 innovativeness, originality, creativity 5 10 practical, economical and societal utility 2 11 not (merely) the volume of publications or citations 1 12 other 2 13 can't say, NA 199 [f52a] In your opinion, which indicators could be used to measure the successfulness of research (first mention) In your opinion, which indicators could be used to measure the successfulness of research (first mention) 217 1 15 8.93 4.941 1 volume of publication output 14 2 quality and importance of publications, publication channel 24 3 international publications 11 4 international duties and activities 0 5 peer reviews 22 6 international evaluation, international panel 6 7 citations and other bibliometric indicators 14 8 Impact factor, summarized references 7 9 funding 1 10 practical applications, applicability of findings 29 11 number of degrees or theses 0 12 not (merely) the volume of publications or citations 12 13 not possible to have one uniform, objective measurement 22 14 other 12 15 can't say, NA 43 [f52b] In your opinion, which indicators could be used to measure the successfulness of research (second mention) In your opinion, which indicators could be used to measure the successfulness of research (second mention) 217 1 15 12.26 4.520 1 volume of publication output 6 2 quality and importance of publications, publication channel 12 3 international publications 3 4 international duties and activities 5 5 peer reviews 7 6 international evaluation, international panel 1 7 citations and other bibliometric indicators 7 8 Impact factor, summarized references 2 9 funding 1 10 practical applications, applicability of findings 11 11 number of degrees or theses 5 12 not (merely) the volume of publications or citations 7 13 not possible to have one uniform, objective measurement 2 14 other 8 15 can't say, NA 140 [f52c] In your opinion, which indicators could be used to measure the successfulness of research (third mention) In your opinion, which indicators could be used to measure the successfulness of research (third mention) 217 1 15 14.41 2.446 1 volume of publication output 3 2 quality and importance of publications, publication channel 2 3 international publications 1 4 international duties and activities 0 5 peer reviews 0 6 international evaluation, international panel 1 7 citations and other bibliometric indicators 2 8 Impact factor, summarized references 0 9 funding 0 10 practical applications, applicability of findings 1 11 number of degrees or theses 3 12 not (merely) the volume of publications or citations 1 13 not possible to have one uniform, objective measurement 2 14 other 0 15 can't say, NA 201 [ika] Respondent's age Respondent's age 216 22 70 36.75 10.447 [a5nocod] Respondent's research experience in years Respondent's research experience in years 217 0 46 9.18 9.714 [tietjulk] Number of scientific publications Number of scientific publications 210 0 70 4.87 8.406 [tuotk1] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Books/monographs (if dissertation, please note) Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Books/monographs (if dissertation, please note) 207 0 1 .05 .215 [tuotk2] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Textbooks Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Textbooks 207 0 4 .07 .418 [tuotk3] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Editing jointly authored books Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Editing jointly authored books 207 0 3 .03 .259 [tuotk4] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Original articles in scientific journals and jointly authored books Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Original articles in scientific journals and jointly authored books 207 0 14 .90 2.068 [tuotk5] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: University, research institute or university department series Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: University, research institute or university department series 207 0 25 .81 2.481 [tuotk6] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Other scientific publications (e.g. literature reviews, bibliographies, proceedings of scientific conferences) Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Other scientific publications (e.g. literature reviews, bibliographies, proceedings of scientific conferences) 207 0 4 .20 .627 [tuotk7] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Abstracts Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Abstracts 207 0 8 .30 1.000 [tuotk8] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Patents or patent applications Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Patents or patent applications 207 0 2 .04 .247 [tuotk9] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Other scientific or technical products (e.g. algorithms, software, prototypes, experimental material) Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Other scientific or technical products (e.g. algorithms, software, prototypes, experimental material) 207 0 7 .20 .884 [tuotk10] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Non-scientific publications, newspaper or magazine articles, radio or tv programmes, other learning material than monographs Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Non-scientific publications, newspaper or magazine articles, radio or tv programmes, other learning material than monographs 207 0 60 1.91 7.401 [tuotk11] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Scientific journals Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Scientific journals 207 0 14 .84 2.055 [tuotk12] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Jointly authored scientific books and proceedings books published by well-know publishers Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Jointly authored scientific books and proceedings books published by well-know publishers 207 0 2 .06 .290 [tuotk13] Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Other learning material than textbooks Volume of scientific output published in Finland 1986 - 1988: Other learning material than textbooks 170 0 32 .26 2.487 [tuotu1] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Books/monographs (if dissertation, please note) Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Books/monographs (if dissertation, please note) 170 0 0 .00 .000 [tuotu2] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Textbooks Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Textbooks 170 0 1 .01 .077 [tuotu3] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Editing jointly authored books Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Editing jointly authored books 170 0 0 .00 .000 [tuotu4] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Original articles in scientific journals and jointly authored books Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Original articles in scientific journals and jointly authored books 207 0 37 2.27 5.252 [tuotu5] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: University, research institute or university department series Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: University, research institute or university department series 207 0 1 .01 .098 [tuotu6] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Other scientific publications (e.g. literature reviews, bibliographies, proceedings of scientific conferences) Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Other scientific publications (e.g. literature reviews, bibliographies, proceedings of scientific conferences) 207 0 9 .39 1.298 [tuotu7] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Abstracts Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Abstracts 207 0 48 2.11 5.790 [tuotu8] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Patents or patent applications Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Patents or patent applications 170 0 4 .05 .365 [tuotu9] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Other scientific or technical products (e.g. algorithms, software, prototypes, experimental material) Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Other scientific or technical products (e.g. algorithms, software, prototypes, experimental material) 170 0 2 .02 .187 [tuotu10] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Non-scientific publications, newspaper or magazine articles, radio or tv programmes, other learning material than monographs Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Non-scientific publications, newspaper or magazine articles, radio or tv programmes, other learning material than monographs 170 0 3 .04 .274 [tuotu11] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Scientific journals Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Scientific journals 207 0 30 1.99 4.667 [tuotu12] Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Jointly authored scientific books and proceedings books published by well-know publishers Volume of scientific output published abroad 1986 - 1988: Jointly authored scientific books and proceedings books published by well-know publishers 207 0 7 .28 .929